Mark Prisk: With more than 1 million jobs lost, including NCR jobs in Dundee, all hon. Members are naturally concerned about the prospects for manufacturing. The key is increased investment. To be fair, the Chancellor has been positively frenetic in this area, as every year he introduces a raft of new initiatives, and every year, he and other Ministers spend hundreds of millions of pounds. Can the Minister of State explain why, instead of rising, investment in manufacturing has fallen by 28 per cent.? Where does he think the Chancellor has gone wrong?

Jim Fitzpatrick: I can confirm that discussions have taken place between the Post Office and the credit unions' national body on greater scope for working together. Regular dialogue will continue. Although working together would have a social role, it is not clear that it would generate much revenue for the Post Office. However, it would obviously increase footfall and ensure that the Post Office was further rooted in most vulnerable communities. Credit unions are on the up and expanding. I hope that they have a positive future with the Post Office.

Jim Fitzpatrick: In his statement on 14 December, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced a three-month consultation period until 8 March for representations about spending the £1.7 billion additional money that we will use to support the Post Office's sustainable network. There are several innovative and new ways in which we can improve the protection arrangements for the Post Office. New ways of doing business are an example of that and we welcome representations from colleagues, as well as outside organisations, about how best to expand the business.

Anne McIntosh: I thank the Secretary of State both for that answer and the statement that he made in December. Does he appreciate, however, that North Yorkshire is probably the most rural, as well as the largest, county in England? About 84 per cent. of its population live within a mile of a post office. Will he guarantee that that will still be the case in five years' time? Will he free sub-post offices from the constraints of their current contract so that they can offer new services and not be so dependent on the subsidy in future?

Alistair Darling: The hon. Gentleman has already arranged to meet the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Jim Fitzpatrick) to discuss the specific difficulties at Reading. In relation to his wider point, the Royal Mail is now in competition with a number of other major operators. It will face stiff competition and have to undergo substantial changes. The Royal Mail board is committed to that, and it is important to recognise that change is essential if the Royal Mail is to survive.

Philip Davies: Bingley post office in my constituency closed before Christmas, and a temporary post office was put in its place. According to a parliamentary answer, 99 per cent. of towns the size of Bingley have full post offices. Will the Secretary of State assure my constituents that his announcement before Christmas about post office closures will not stop the Government and Royal Mail doing everything possible to keep a permanent post office in Bingley, in view of the important part that it plays for local people and the support that it gives local businesses with the footfall that it generates?

Jim Fitzpatrick: The hon. Lady should not really support the idea of a bank holiday on her brother's birthday, as that too would fall in the spring. What she says about the calendar is accurate, but, as I told my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle), we have no plans to change the current arrangements.

Jim Fitzpatrick: My hon. Friend makes a valid point: we are now in the early-21st century and many of us found it scandalous when we realised that, having legislated for 20 days of paid annual leave in 1998, some companies were incorporating the existing eight statutory bank holidays into those 20 days. I do not think that there is any support for those companies in any part of the House, and I hope that they will put their house in order before they are forced to do so by legislation. We are consulting on the introduction of those holidays, and we expect to introduce four later this year and four next year. However, that is a matter for consultation, but we look forward to the legislation being introduced in due course.

Andrew Rosindell: I thank the Minister for that reply, but does he not agree that the current system for small business support is incoherent, ineffective and hinders the development of the entrepreneurial economy? What assurances can he give that there will be genuine root-and-branch reform of Government business support schemes and quangos?

Ian McCartney: I do not agree at all. Yes, we need to rationalise, but let us be absolutely clear about what lies behind his question. At the last general election, his party wanted to cut £500 million from the core business support budget and to close down entirely the Small Business Service, whereas Labour is committed to investing in the small business sector and we will continue to do so. However, we also want to rationalise that to make it more effective; that is entirely different from the cut-and-run strategy that the hon. Gentleman supports.

Nicholas Winterton: Following on from the question of the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann), does the Minister accept that energy prices are one of the major costs for smaller businesses? Energy prices have risen dramatically in recent times, but the price at which the distributors and energy companies sell energy to smaller businesses does not drop in accordance with different market conditions. Will the Minister take an interest in that, and ensure that those companies not only experience rapid rises in their profits and offer attractive packages to their executives, but offer competitive prices to small businesses?

Ruth Kelly: The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point. The gender pay gap has been closing over the past 10 years or so, but we need to make further progress. As part of the exemplar initiative, we work with private sector employers to overcome the barriers to promotion that women face and to open up part-time work opportunities, not just at the lower-paid end of the market, but also in respect of higher-quality and higher-paid jobs. That initiative is a really important element in taking the matter forward.

Tony Lloyd: What steps she is taking to encourage greater participation in electoral politics among those groups of people with lower-than-average levels of participation.

Jack Straw: The business of the House for next week is as follows:
	Monday 22 January—Second Reading of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill.
	Tuesday 23 January—Opposition Day [3rd Allotted Day], there will be a debate on health-care-acquired infections, followed by a debate on life chances of disabled children.
	Both debates arise on an Opposition motion.
	Wednesday 24 January—A debate on Iraq and the middle east on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
	Thursday 25 January—Remaining stages of the Fraud (Trials without a Jury) Bill.
	Friday 26 January—Private Members' Bills.
	The provisional business for the following week will be:
	Monday 29 January—Remaining stages of the Digital Switchover (Disclosure of Information) Bill.
	Tuesday 30 January—Opposition Day [4th Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.
	Wednesday 31 January—Motions relating to the police grant and local government finance reports.
	Thursday 1 February—A debate on "Defence in the World" on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
	Friday 2 February—Private Members' Bills.

Theresa May: I thank the Leader of the House for giving us the forthcoming business.
	In September 2005, the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced that he had commissioned a report into opportunities to support economic development in Israel and Palestine. I am sure that the Leader of the House was party to that decision as he was Foreign Secretary at the time. More than one year on, the report has still not been published. Will it be published before the debate on Iraq and the middle east next week and if not, why not?
	Talking of the Chancellor's promises, in his 2004 Budget he announced the Building Schools for the Future programme. The plans showed that 300 new schools would be open by the end of 2008. Now we know that there will be only 70. I am sure that when the Leader of the House replies, he will give us the usual spending list, but I ask a specific question: why is the programme so behind schedule and will the Chancellor come to the House to explain his failure to deliver on yet another of his promises?
	Last year, the House agreed new procedures for the Committee stage of Bills. The new Public Bill Committees can take oral and written evidence, and the Leader of the House made it clear that that would not apply to Bills introduced in the House before Christmas, but the decision as to which Bills are covered appears to be at the whim of the Government. The Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill received its First Reading before Christmas and will take oral evidence. On the other hand, the Pensions Bill, which also had its First Reading before Christmas, cannot take oral evidence, yet the Minister for Pensions Reform tabled an amendment on the written evidence for the Committee yesterday; so it is subject to some of the new procedures but not all of them. Surely, the decision as to the powers of Bill Committees is a matter for the House and not for the Government. Will the Leader of the House confirm that under Standing Order 83C decisions about the number of evidence sessions should be taken by the relevant Public Bill Committee through its Programming Sub-Committee? Will he also confirm that a Public Bill Committee can decide to take evidence notwithstanding a decision to the contrary by the Government? To aid clarity, will he make a statement to the House, setting out how the new arrangement should operate, the responsibilities of the various parties and the criteria that have been used by the Government to decide which Committees could take oral evidence?
	I am sure that the Leader of the House is concerned to ensure proper access to information for Members. On Monday, the Government published research described as
	"an important new insight into the public's thinking".
	Yesterday, it was shown that the Government had deleted nearly 90 pages of damaging results from that report, which showed, for example, that 46 per cent. of the public think that the NHS will get worse over the next few years and concerns about the political culture of spin and deceit. Why did the Cabinet Office doctor that research, and will the Leader of the House ensure that a full, unadulterated copy of the report is placed in the Library?
	Poor train services along the Great Western line are causing major problems for many Members' constituents, including mine. A key issue is overcrowding. Health and safety on the railways is the responsibility of the Office of Rail Regulation, yet nothing is being done. Indeed, the Department for Transport says that people can stand for up to half an hour. May we have a statement from the Secretary of State for Transport on the responsibilities of the ORR and the role of independent railway regulation?
	Finally, may we have a debate on the operation of health and safety rules? There are regulations to stop the overcrowding of chickens on trains, but not of people. Meanwhile, health and safety rules mean that firemen in Humberside have been stopped going up ladders to fit smoke alarms, because
	"a firefighter on a stepladder not much more than 6ft from the floor may be contravening the Health and Safety Executive Work at Height Regulations 2005".
	Chickens are protected but not people, firemen are stopped from going up ladders: we could not make it up if we tried, so may we have a debate to expose the utter stupidity of many health and safety regulations that are seriously damaging our way of life?

Jack Straw: Let me seek to answer those questions in turn. The first was on my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's report, or investigations, which were in fact handled by the Economic Secretary, into economic development in Israel and Palestine. I shall certainly talk to my right hon. Friend about whether the information is in sufficient form to be published. Of course, the situation between Israel and the occupied territories has become much more serious, I am afraid—not least because of the Lebanon war.
	The right hon. Lady's first point was not bad, but she then made a terrible one, by drawing a contrast between our record on school building and her own. I advise her not to pursue that, because our record on school building is astonishing when compared with hers. I remember when I was shadow Education Secretary that, year after year, I had to publish a dossier on crumbling schools because of the terrible state of the buildings. That is illustrated by the fact that in 1997, just £700 million was being spent on school buildings, and that figure has now risen to £6.4 thousand million. I say to the right hon. Lady that on this, as on NHS spending, she voted against such increases in public spending, and everyone knows that the unquestionable improvements that have taken place in every school across the country under our Government would not have taken place under her. The Building Schools for the Future programme, from which thousands of children will benefit, is simply a further stage in the brilliant programme that we have followed— [Interruption.] One or two Conservative Members may well—

Jack Straw: I just have. Some Conservative Members may be laughing about this, but all they have to do is look at the state of school buildings in their constituencies and compare what they are like now with what they were like before 1997. They should remember that they voted against the increases in spending.
	The right hon. Lady asked about new procedures for the Bills. If she looks at what I said when the matter was debated—I was very grateful for her support for this important change both on the Modernisation Committee and on the Floor of the House—she will see that I said that the new procedures would be introduced for all Bills that were introduced into this House after Christmas. I made it clear that the number of Bills to which the procedure would apply in this Session would be limited. The reason for that is to ensure that this change—unlike, for example, the change to Special Standing Committees, which was a good idea, but never properly bedded down—is properly bedded down.
	On the powers of the House, I regret that I cannot recall every detail of Standing Order No. 83C and it is a matter for the Chair, not for me. We are very committed—I include in this my right hon. Friends the Chief Whip and the Deputy Chief Whip—to making this system effective. If the Standing Orders say that not only the Programming Sub-Committee but the Public Bill Committee can decide on whether to have evidence sessions, that is correct. It depends on what the Standing Order says.
	The right hon. Lady asked me about the national health service and I have to say that I have not seen the document to which she refers—either in expurgated or unexpurgated form—but I will make inquiries about it. I also remind her that she has voted against all the increases in spending on health care. My Blackburn constituency is one of 650 examples of where increases in spending have made a great difference to health care. When I visited a friend in the Royal Blackburn hospital on Saturday, people came up to me—they did not know that I was going to be there—to say, "Mr. Straw, the service that we are now getting in this new hospital is fantastic".
	The right hon. Lady then asked about train services. I would be delighted to invite my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport to talk about responsibilities for that service, because the principal responsibility for current train services— [Interruption.] Oh no, Conservative Members voted for railway privatisation back in 1994. Yes, we are responsible now and we have brought back Network Rail into public ownership—and a very good thing, too, as it has transformed the quality of the infrastructure. The decision by First Great Western, which I do not understand, to take out good carriages and replace them with fewer bad carriages, comes directly from the sort of financial regime that the right hon. Lady's Government established for the rolling stock companies.
	I was also asked about the operation of health and safety rules. I suspect that we all agree about this. I heard on the radio this morning the story about the Humberside fire service. If it is correct, it is barmy. I go up ladders quite frequently—

Jack Straw: I am sadly familiar with the situation. It is unacceptable. The Home Office and the entry clearance service have a limited period once an appeal has been found in favour of the applicant of, I think, 28 days to decide whether they will enter a further appeal. After that, the visas ought to be issued. I pursued this matter when I was Foreign Secretary. I know that my right hon. Friend the current Foreign Secretary is very concerned about it and I will take it up with her.

David Heath: It would not be entirely true if I said that I did not want to make the Home Secretary's life more difficult, but will he come to the House to make a statement, not on prisoners escaping, but on prisoners being locked out of jail? The Prison Service has asked the police, yet again, to house 450 convicts. Only 264 police cells are available. This week, 330 prisoners were locked out of jail. We have an overcrowding problem yet again. The first thing that we need to do is provide more secure accommodation for those with mental illness, who are quite wrongly in our jails.
	The right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) raised a point about rail services—another form of overcrowding. I entirely endorse what she said, particularly with reference to First Great Western. Rail users have all sorts of things to contend with. Only this week, two swans held up a train for half an hour in Worle in Somerset. However, they should not have to put up with having to pay £5,000 a year for a season ticket, only to be told by an official from the Department for Transport that they have no entitlement to a seat. That is not the way to run a rail service and we should have a debate on that.
	Touching on the issue of firemen who are not allowed to walk up ladders, may we have a debate on the Better Regulation Commission report, "Risk, Responsibility, Regulation: Whose Risk Is It Anyway?"? It seems to have some sensible things to say about nonsense such as that. Two of its key recommendations are:
	"reducing knee jerk regulation by educating ministers and civil servants about risk management"
	and
	"a campaign against inconsistencies and absurdities".
	Those things seem long overdue. The report was issued last October and I believe that the Government have yet to respond.
	Lastly, will the Leader of the House examine carefully his reply to me last week? I raised the issue of the BAE Systems Saudi Arabia case. He said to me:
	"If he bothered to read the statement made by the director general of the Serious Fraud Office...he would see that the whole point of the decision was a judgment that there would be insufficient evidence to justify a prosecution even if there were another year and a half's inquiry."—[ Official Report, 11 January 2007; Vol. 455, c. 438.]
	In fact, what Robert Wardle, the director of the Serious Fraud Office, said was that his team found significant evidence in the Saudi arms inquiry and hoped to find more from Swiss banks. I invite the Leader of the House to correct the record and perhaps to deprecate the use of spin by the Attorney-General in what is becoming an increasingly sordid episode.

Jack Straw: The hon. Gentleman says that he does not want to make the Home Secretary's life difficult, but the record of the Liberal Democrats has been one of making public protection and the responsibilities of the Home Secretary much more difficult. There is no point in the Liberal Democrats complaining about a shortage of prison places when they have campaigned against an increase in those places. I can bet my life that if there were proposals to increase the amount of secure accommodation, they would be campaigning against them as well.
	I am also concerned about rail services. I occasionally use First Great Western, and its service is poor and among the worst in the country. However, although the House is responsible for the total investment in the railways, which has increased considerably, and for investment in, and the ultimate control of, Network Rail, which is effectively a publicly-owned company, it is not responsible for the private companies. I do not think that the Liberals voted for the idea, but the Conservatives certainly did. The responsibility for the ludicrous decision to take good, new stock out of commission and to replace it with fewer carriages of old stock must rest not with the Government, but with those who run First Great Western.
	The hon. Gentleman asks about the Better Regulation Executive. We would be happy to see the matter debated. I have often heard Bill Callaghan, the head of the Health and Safety Commission, say that he wants a common-sense approach to health and safety. He deprecates just as much as the House such ludicrous over-interpretation of the regulations.
	Of course I will look at what I said last week about the BAE Systems-Saudi decision. I do not have the record with me, but if it needs correcting, I will of course do so. I certainly recall that the combination of what the head of the Serious Fraud Office and the Attorney-General said was that a judgment had been made that continuing the prosecution would not be in the national interest and that a continuation of the process, even for a further 18 months, would be very unlikely to produce evidence that could secure a prosecution. The Liberal Democrats claim to be the first to defend the civil liberties of others. They need to be very careful before they continue to spray around allegations of culpability by anyone, including BAES and the Saudi Government.

Nadine Dorries: Unfortunately, there was no commitment in this year's Queen's speech to review or even look at the Abortion Act 1967, which reaches its 40th anniversary this year. I have received representations from women, medical professionals and organisations over the past few weeks informing me that because of deficits and other problems in the NHS, women who have decided to have an abortion are being made to wait until the next month or even the next financial year. Does not the Leader of the House think that that is highly inappropriate behaviour on behalf of primary care trusts and in terms of what is happening with abortion in the UK anyway, given that public opinion has changed? Is it not time for us to have a debate in the House?

Andrew Miller: In light of the interesting statements made by Angela Merkel and the recent press comments made by Commissioner Mandelson, is it not about time that we had a debate on Europe?

Jack Straw: We always have a debate on Europe before each European Council. I would be delighted to have a debate on Europe and the practical European approach that the Government have adopted since 1997. I read the article by my right hon. friend Commissioner Mandelson in  The Guardian this morning with interest, although I am afraid that I did not regard myself as any more informed about the case that he was making by the time that I finished it than I was when I started.

Julian Lewis: In case I am not fortunate enough to catch your eye during the next statement, Mr. Speaker, may I ask for a full debate on the implications of the speech made by the head of BBC News last year, in which he spoke of replacing due impartiality in broadcasting with radical impartiality? That would result in the views of people associated with the Taliban and the British National party being given much more airtime. That is a serious implication, and it requires a full debate because it sets aside the tradition that public service broadcasting should not be neutral as between the arsonist and the fire brigade.

Andrew Gwynne: Stockport is considered to be a wealthy borough, under most indices, but the two Stockport wards in my constituency share the same socio-economic characteristics as neighbouring Tameside, where I have five wards, and Manchester. That social polarisation means that my constituents in Stockport miss out on the extra funding that is needed. For example, it is at the back of the queue for the building schools for the future programme. Will my right hon. Friend find the time for a debate on social polarisation and funding streams, so that those issues of social justice can be aired with Ministers?

Diana Johnson: I thank my right hon. Friend for his written response to my concerns about Braille transcribing. A constituent wrote to me in Braille, and I needed to have the letter transcribed. However, will my right hon. Friend consider again whether that should be a mainstream duty of the House, so that it is not left to individual MPs to use their incidental expenses provision allowance for that purpose, as transcribing costs for Braille and audio services could amount to a large sum?

Jack Straw: I will look into the issue, and I could certainly envisage that certain Members of Parliament, such as those who had a home for the blind in their constituency, would have much more contact with people who are blind than other Members. I shall certainly follow the matter up.

Jack Straw: That is a nice one. I should just say that next week, the debate is on the middle east and Iraq; the week following that is a good opportunity for a debate on defence in the world. One of the things that one learns as Foreign Secretary—indeed, it is perfectly obvious even before one reaches that august office—is that one cannot pick and choose whom people elect to foreign Governments. We have to accept foreign Governments as they are, and work with them constructively. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made clear—it is a position backed by the whole Labour party—our alliance with the United States and our union with Europe are the twin pillars of our successful foreign policy and relationships abroad.

Jack Straw: I take my hon. Friend's point. Obviously, I am more familiar with the arrangements for east Lancashire, but I speak not only for myself but for all my colleagues representing east Lancashire constituencies when I say that there has indeed been consultation with Members of Parliament, and to my certain knowledge, with the district councils. However, I shall certainly pass on my hon. Friend's point.

Angus MacNeil: Last week, I reminded the Leader of the House that, on 25 October, the Prime Minister said at the Dispatch Box that he would be happy to debate Iraq any time, yet six days later, he failed to turn up and show his face at a Scottish National party and Plaid Cyrmu debate on Iraq. Has the Leader of the House convinced the Prime Minister to be here on 24 January, as I asked him to last week? I cannot help but think that, if this was four years ago, and the debate was on going to war, the Prime Minister would be here, spinning and misleading from the front. Now, with 650,000 dead—

Jack Straw: I share the hon. Gentleman's concern, which is House wide. Like my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, I deeply regretted the unusual decision by China and Russia to use their veto, but I shall certainly bear in mind the hon. Gentleman's request.

Jack Straw: I am always happy for those issues to be debated, and I remember a Front-Bench request not very long ago that resulted in such a debate in the House. It easy to proclaim the idea of an "English Parliament", but it is much more difficult to achieve. In my judgment, we have a Parliament that represents the direct interests of our constituents in England as well as those of constituents in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland on reserved matters. The House of Commons has worked effectively for centuries, and long may it continue to do so.

Nicholas Winterton: While I accept that a debate on defence in the world will be held in a fortnight, does the Leader of the House not accept that a debate on housing and accommodation for the armed forces is long overdue? Three or four years ago, I took part in the armed forces parliamentary scheme, when I visited many barracks in the UK and operations overseas. The accommodation that we provide for our armed forces is in a desperately bad state, and does not compare with that provided by our allies. May we have a debate in the House in Government time or in Westminster Hall on that very subject?

Jack Straw: Well, Mr. Speaker, you and I could go up a stepladder and do so.

Jack Straw: I accept the importance of the matter raised by the hon. Gentleman, and I shall follow it up with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. The quicker we get the Assembly going, however, the sooner there will be a full opportunity for those issues to be debated where they should be debated which, in our judgment, is on the ground in Northern Ireland.

Tessa Jowell: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the BBC licence fee.
	Over the past three years, the public, industry and Parliament have all contributed to a national debate about the BBC, its future shape and its funding in an unprecedented exercise in public involvement. I am now in a position to announce what the funding will be over the first part of the new 10-year charter period. The settlement will be for six years, with annual nominal increases in the licence fee of 3 per cent. for the first two years, and 2 per cent. in years 3, 4 and 5 of the settlement. There will be an increase in the sixth year—2012-13—of up to 2 per cent., depending on a further review nearer the time. I have written to the BBC Trust today setting that out. Those are cash increases.
	The price of a colour TV licence will rise from its current level of £131.50 to £135.50 from 1 April this year, reaching a figure of up to £151.50 in 2012. Based on the Treasury forecast of the consumer price index—the Bank of England's inflation measure—that will either be above or in line with inflation for each year of the settlement. That will enable the BBC to deliver its new public purposes, which we set out in the new charter. As digital technology transforms the media world, it will enable the BBC to take a leading role in making the most of such technology. Investment in high-quality content—the driver of creative industry and what audiences value most of all—will remain high. The settlement will enable the BBC to do that. It will also allow the BBC to move key departments, including children's programmes, sport, new media and learning, to Salford in the north-west of England. I, like hon. Members in all parts of the House, will welcome the trust's confirmation, due later today, that that will happen.
	This is a vital opportunity for the BBC to widen its geographical spread and relevance, and make better use of the creativity and talent that exist right across the United Kingdom, bringing huge benefits to the regional economy, estimated at £1.5 billion and 15,500 jobs. Through greater efficiency, the settlement will allow the BBC to maintain all its current services and provide up to £1.2bn for investment in new activities.
	The people of the United Kingdom spend more of their money on the BBC than any other country in the world spends on public service broadcasting, except Germany. So the new BBC Trust must ensure that licence fee payers get the best possible value for that investment. We expect the trust to ensure efficiency in the BBC. On the basis of independent evidence from the consultants PKF and others, we believe that the BBC can realise up to 3 per cent. cash-releasing savings annually from 2008. A separate report published today by the National Audit Office confirms that our judgment is based on adequate evidence. It will be the trust's responsibility to set specific targets and hold the management of the BBC responsible for meeting them.
	On digital switchover, the BBC has been given a leading role in the delivery of this revolution. In particular, the licence fee settlement will fund the £600 million scheme that we are putting in place to help elderly and disabled people make the switch to digital, as part of our commitment to universal broadcasting and to ensure that no one is left behind. The Government's expectation is that the BBC will lead the delivery of the scheme. We respect the independent status of the trust, and clearly there are details of the implementation of the scheme still to be discussed. The Government will retain responsibility for the policy, including helping with procurement and determining eligibility for the scheme.
	The BBC will also pay for the £200 million public communications campaign being run by Digital UK to ensure that people are properly prepared and properly informed about switchover. These sums will be ring-fenced within the settlement and so will not form part of the BBC's baseline at the end of the settlement. We have made it clear that carrying out these responsibilities will not impact on the BBC's core services and budgets. We are giving the BBC a 12.5 per cent. increase in its borrowing capacity to help deliver this commitment. We will ensure that the BBC's services are protected from any cost increases in the help scheme, above our existing estimates.
	In last year's White Paper on the BBC, we noted that Channel 4 was likely to face major financial challenges from digital switchover in the future. Ofcom is assessing the potential scale of those challenges. We said at the time that we would consider potential forms of help, including asking the BBC to help towards meeting Channel 4's capital switchover costs, and possible access for Channel 4 to some of the BBC's digital TV capacity. As I said, Ofcom's review of Channel 4 is looking in detail at its financial prospects and is expected to report towards the summer. I am therefore keeping open, within the licence fee settlement, the possibility that we may require the BBC to contribute to the first six years of Channel 4's switchover costs. This will be no more that £14 million in total.
	I welcome the BBC's conclusion that, in principle, it can make available some spare digital terrestrial capacity, amounting to a TV slot in England and three radio slots, at switchover. Under the BBC agreement, I can direct the BBC to make capacity available to another public service broadcaster, where it is in the interests of public service broadcasting in the UK. I shall decide whether and how to use that power in the light of the Ofcom review.
	The settlement that I have set out for the BBC provides stability and certainty over the crucial period of digital switchover. The sixth year will, in effect, also form the first year of the following settlement. It will allow us to undertake a further review of the licence fee level in the run-up to the mid-charter point, taking account of the wider review of public service broadcasting, consistent with our commitment in the White Paper.
	A strong, independent BBC, accountable to its licence payers—its paymasters—and providing the highest public value: that has been our fundamental goal throughout this long process. It is now complete, and the BBC, along with other broadcasters, can plan and prepare for digital switchover, the next great revolution in television, ensuring that the most vulnerable are protected and that the founding principle of public service broadcasting in this country, universal access, is secured. I therefore commend the settlement to the House.

Hugo Swire: I thank the Secretary of State for her statement, and for allowing me prior sight of the text.
	As is so often the case with the Government, the House is the last to know the details. The licence fee settlement was not announced in today's statement by the Secretary of State. It was leaked by Treasury officials to Channel 4 News two days after Parliament rose for Christmas, and in a series of subsequent leaks to the media. Will the Secretary of State therefore apologise to the House for the shameful way in which it has been treated over the announcement?
	Is not the real point that the statement is the Chancellor's announcement, not the Secretary of State's, and that it is as much a defeat for the right hon. Lady as for the director-general of the BBC? Not for the first time, the Secretary of State has had an unfortunate collision with the "great, clunking fist".
	None the less, we are grateful that the process of negotiating the licence fee has at last drawn to a close. There have been three years of what the Secretary of State would call consultation, which has in fact been dithering and indecisiveness on her part and the part of the Government. Time and again, the Secretary of State let it be known that an announcement was imminent, and time and again she was forced to postpone it—first, last summer, then the autumn, then Christmas. Finally, a decision has been reached, and months of damaging uncertainty may at last be coming to an end.
	The Opposition fully support the important contribution that the BBC makes to the lives of the British people. The BBC is clearly one of our greatest organisations, and one of the most effective global ambassadors that we have. Of course we wish to see it appropriately resourced.
	The Secretary of State was originally convinced by the BBC's inflation-busting argument. We were not. We argued that, at a time of falling advertising revenue, no other media business could expect such a substantial guaranteed income stream over the next seven years. We believe it is right that the BBC should be asked to live within the realities of today's rapidly changing media environment. This is a more realistic settlement.
	The settlement, combined with greater income from household growth, means that the BBC will receive substantially more money than it does today—something that none of its competitors can hope for. However, no other media organisation has been asked to take on the huge new responsibilities that the Secretary of State has foisted on the BBC. The BBC is now responsible for digital switchover. At least, the right hon. Lady said in her statement that the Government's expectation remains that the BBC will lead the delivery of the scheme. Perhaps she could take the opportunity to clarify whether the BBC Trust has agreed to deliver on targeted assistance on the terms that she articulated.
	Not only that, but the BBC is expected to move a large part of its organisation to Salford—a move that will cost at least £400 million. Those two new obligations will cost the BBC about £1.5 billion over the next four years—money that will have to be taken out of the licence fee. According to the Library, the cost of targeted help for digital switchover—£600 million—would, on its own, add £7.20 to the cost of the licence fee. Does the Secretary of State believe that those new obligations can still be met under this settlement? Can she assure us that programme quality will not be jeopardised? That is certainly not what the director-general, Mark Thompson, is on record as saying this afternoon.
	On digital switchover, given that the Secretary of State has said that the money will be ring-fenced, will it appear as a separate item on the licence fee so that viewers know that they are meeting that cost? Where will any extra money come from if the cost of switchover exceeds the Department's estimates? Will it come from the licence fee or from the Treasury? Once switchover has been accomplished, will the level of the licence fee be reduced accordingly?
	Even after today's announcements, there is still a huge degree of uncertainty. The reason is clear. The Chancellor, who cannot resist interfering with anything and everything, could not resist the chance to meddle with the licence fee. He has loaded it with a stealth tax and forced obligations onto the BBC that it did not want. Future licence fee settlements must not be negotiated in that way. Under the next Conservative Government, it will be for Parliament to debate the role of the BBC in a rapidly changing, technologically driven media world.
	The Secretary of State cites the National Audit Office, yet the NAO has not seen the books. As an organisation in receipt of more than £3 billion of public money, it is surely right and proper that the BBC should be subject to independent scrutiny and that the results should be debated properly here in Parliament. Will she at least allow the NAO full access to the figures outlining how the BBC spends £3 billion of public money?
	This licence fee settlement has been subject to superficial consultation and grubby, behind-closed-doors negotiations. The right and proper place to debate the future role of the BBC, the future of public service broadcasting, and the right level of the settlement is here in this Chamber, and we will make sure that that is the case in future.

Tessa Jowell: As usual, we have had a diatribe from the Opposition about process but we are none the wiser about what their policy on the BBC would be. It is extraordinary that they are so contemptuous of the three-year consultation process, a process that recognises the fundamental point that the BBC does not belong to Government—it belongs to, and is paid for by, the people of this country, and it is therefore to them that the BBC should ultimately be accountable. I make no apology whatsoever for inviting people of this country to participate, for the first time, in the consultation on the charter review and the future of the BBC. The unprecedented level of participation was a measure of the importance that the public attach to the BBC—an importance that the Opposition ride over in a rather arrogant and slipshod way.
	This is a timely settlement. The last licence fee settlement was not reached until the middle of the February before the new licence fee level came into effect at the beginning of the following April. That is an important lesson. I hope that when the next Labour Government negotiate the licence fee, time will be allowed for consultation with the licence fee payer.
	Let me deal with the couple of specific points that the hon. Gentleman made. I have underlined in the statement, and to the BBC, the ring-fenced nature of the moneys that will be raised from the licence fee to pay for targeted help and the costs of switchover. That money is ring-fenced subject, on the Government's decision, to very clear protection of the BBC's major function, which is to put high-quality programming on to people's screens. That ring-fenced sum will ensure that the BBC's role in running the targeted help scheme and leading on the digital switchover will not be detrimentally affected by other considerations.
	Those costs will be levied on the licence fee payer specifically for the period of switchover. If the hon. Gentleman had listened to the statement—he continues not to listen to my answer to his question—he would know that they will not form part of the BBC's baseline. That means that at the end of the switchover period the BBC Trust will be able to return those moneys to the licence fee payer or, in consultation with licence fee payers, to make judgments about how else they might be used.

Tessa Jowell: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. I entirely agree with his observation about the importance of the BBC's role in maintaining standards of journalism. That is not something that the BBC merely discharges—it has an absolute responsibility to honour its obligations in terms of accuracy and impartiality. The people of this country have a very clear understanding—much clearer than they are sometimes given credit for—of the difference between opinion and the vociferous comment of newspapers. That is partly because when they turn on BBC television, they know that they can expect the news and information that they receive to be accurate and impartial. It is a heavy responsibility and one that licence fee payers expect it to discharge.
	On Channel 4, the decision about whether to provide assistance will be heavily informed by Ofcom's regulatory assessment of the justification for doing so. Of course, every single public service broadcaster has a particular obligation to maintain the trust and confidence of the public who pay for them.

Don Foster: For more than 80 years, the BBC has been the envy of the world and has had the reputation of setting the gold standard for TV and radio. Does the Secretary of State acknowledge that based on realistic, not Treasury, estimates, this is a below-inflation rise in the licence fee, and that that will put the BBC's reputation at risk? Surely the only person who will cheer her statement is Mr. Rupert Murdoch.
	The Secretary of State accused the hon. Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire) of being contemptuous of consultation. Does not she recall a survey that she commissioned that demonstrated that the vast majority of licence fee payers are willing to see a modest real-terms increase in the licence fee in return for improved quality? Why is she ignoring her own research?
	Surely it is the case that, for the equivalent of buying only five copies a year of  Radio Times, licence fee payers could have what they wanted—a modest increase in the licence fee in return for improved quality and more services. Perhaps the hon. Member for East Devon put his finger on the problem in that the Secretary of State should not be entirely blamed because the statement has "Treasury" stamped all over it. It means that, for the period of the settlement, the BBC will have £2 billion less than it said that it needed to deliver the Government's White Paper vision. Even if the BBC estimated its costs wrongly and underestimated the amount of income that it can make, the shortfall means that it will have to slash its plans for new services and investment in new programming.
	The settlement confirms that the licence fee payer will pay for the Government's policy of targeted assistance to help vulnerable people switch to digital. Surely the Government should pay for that. Will the Secretary of State answer the question that she has still not answered and say whether she has confirmed such a scheme with the BBC? What will happen if the cost is higher than the £600 million that the Government predict? Will she pay the extra or will the BBC have to cut its programme budget?
	The Secretary of State offered warm words about the BBC's future but they are not backed by the reality of her announcement. Against the wishes of listeners and viewers, and in response to Treasury demands, the BBC has to face a real-terms cut in its income, bear the risk of inflation and fund the cost of the Government's policy of digital switchover out of its programming budget. The Prime Minister tried to bully the BBC over Iraq, but his likely successor appears to want to destroy it.

Tessa Jowell: Thank you very much. It is a great pity that the hon. Gentleman did not listen more closely to what I said.

Tessa Jowell: No, you did not. Had the hon. Gentleman listened, he would have realised that many of his points were clearly answered in my opening remarks. A good decision has been taken across Government and the Opposition are trying to create a story that is a travesty of the truth. The decision will not put the BBC at risk.
	The hon. Gentleman misrepresents the research about the public's willingness to pay the licence fee. A third of those surveyed wanted to pay less; a third were content with the current licence fee, and a third were willing to pay more. However, the class and ethnic make-up of those willing to pay more was marked. Seventy-five per cent. of those surveyed said that any new services that the BBC offered should be funded not by the licence fee but by subscription. The hon. Gentleman—unusually for him—misrepresents the facts of the case.
	The cost of digital switchover is a broadcasting cost and that is why the licence fee should cover it. The only alternative is raising the money through taxes. We know that the Liberal Democrats bravely play fast and loose with public finances and unfunded tax commitments, but it is right that the licence fee payer should meet a broadcasting cost.

Dennis Skinner: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, when the BBC made its declaration for an increase of 2.3 per cent. above the rate of inflation, many of us—including me—thought that that was outrageous? I am pleased that the Jowell-Brown combination has come up with something much more reasonable. If the BBC finds difficulty in managing its books, it should consider some of its programmes. I do not fall for the nonsense about the wonderful journalism—the starry-eyed views that I had when I first came here have changed over the past many years. I would sack Andrew Neil and all his cronies on "The Daily Politics" programme and fire Nick Robinson—another Tory who works for the BBC. If any more savings are needed, what about telling Jonathan Ross that he gets too much money? Finally, the BBC should be told that, if it is going to help Channel 4 with its switchover costs, that station had better drop crap programmes like "Big Brother".

Madam Deputy Speaker: Brief, single questions would be helpful. I also remind hon. Members about the careful use of parliamentary language in posing those questions.

John Whittingdale: Will the Secretary of State confirm that, although the licence fee may not be increasing in real terms, the total amount of money available to the BBC is likely to do so because of household growth? Will she give the House any estimates that she has of the BBC's future total income? Will she also answer the question that my hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire) asked about whether the money that licence fee payers have to contribute towards the non-BBC costs of digital switchover will be separately identified on the licence fee bill?

Mark Pritchard: If the Government are serious about asking the BBC to drive down its costs, why have we not seen a proposal for a salary review board such as the House has? Is it not the case that regional journalists such as those working for BBC Radio Shropshire or on the BBC's "Midlands Today" have to live on pretty low five-figure salaries, while those working in different parts of the United Kingdom—particularly here in the capital—have six or sometimes seven-figure salaries? Is it not time for the Government to take a closer look at the salaries that senior broadcasters earn here in London?

Tessa Jowell: This issue periodically gives rise to public concern and media headlines, and information on it deserves to be made publicly available. However, it is extremely important at a time like this to recognise that the licence fee settlement is setting the financial framework for the BBC. I do not think that anyone in the House would support the idea of a BBC with reduced independence or reduced freedom to operate within that broad framework.
	Salaries are a matter for the BBC, but it is a matter for a BBC that is much more publicly accountable and subject to a much greater level of required transparency than has ever been the case in the past.

Tessa Jowell: Community radio is widely supported, as is the development of local news. However, these decisions are not for me but for the BBC, and I am sure that my hon. Friend will make his representation through the trust.

Andrew Miller: Brian Redhead would have turned in his grave this morning to hear the move to Salford being described on Radio 4 as a move to an "outpost". Does my right hon. Friend agree that this move involves a mainstream part of the BBC that will become part of an important world-class media centre which will benefit not only the BBC and the licence fee payer but private sector broadcasters and programmers?

Paul Holmes: The next few years are crucial for the BBC. It cannot just stand still if it is to maintain its reputation as the best programme producer not just in the UK but in the world. It must meet the demands of the digital multi-channel environment, the costs of the welcome move to Salford, and the £600 million costs of the digital switchover—surely it is the Government's policy to pay for the switchover, as they do the cost of free TV licences for the over-75s. Even without all those extra costs, the settlement represents a below-inflation cut over the next six years. Is the Secretary of State content to take the bullet for the Chancellor's cuts, and to go down in history as the person who undermined the BBC, perhaps fatally?

Julian Lewis: The Secretary of State will realise that licence fee payers do not expect their money to pay for airtime to be given to racists, Nazis, Taliban and other supporters of terrorism at home and abroad. Will she build on the excellent and encouraging answer given by the Leader of the House earlier today, and state whether she has made representations to the BBC about the opinion expressed on 28 November by the head of BBC news that such views should be accorded equal respect to those of democratic representatives? Alternatively, does she agree with the Minister with responsibility for community cohesion, who rightly regarded any such shift as dangerous?

Tessa Jowell: The Leader of the House answered the hon. Gentleman's question clearly, and I entirely agree with him. Let me underline that the policing of accuracy and impartiality is a job for the BBC Trust, but it does it on behalf of the wider public, who want just that: reliable accuracy and impartiality.

Tony McNulty: I do not share my hon. Friend's disappointment, but I take his point about the general problem of mini-motos. I agree that the task of dealing with it should not fall entirely to the police, and that other agencies or systems should also come into play. A licensing system is one possibility, but I think the most fruitful area to explore is direct intervention with manufacturers and retailers, in the full and certain knowledge that not much mini-moto activity can be legally sustained. Mini-motos are not allowed on roads or in public parks, and they are not allowed on private land without express permission.
	This is a huge and growing issue, and we are trying increasingly to deal with it. We are already working with manufacturers and retailers, and we need to do more of that. I will pass on my hon. Friend's suggestion about the licensing system, but I think that proper enforcement by trading standards officers and others—a multi-agency approach at local level—will prove to be the best way of reducing the nuisance that mini-motos undeniably cause.
	I accept and welcome my hon. Friend's points about ASBOs, but if we are to engage in a mature debate we cannot slip into the belief that we are criminalising an entire generation by deploying them. That is not the case, and the numbers involved do not sustain such a suggestion. Nor should we assume that they do not work because they are seen as a badge of honour, that they do not work because of the breach rates, or that they do not help with prevention and helping young people to develop.  [Interruption.] Let me say in response to the chuntering on the Opposition Front Bench that I will return to the issue of the Youth Justice Board. I have a few words to say about that.
	As I have said, ASBOs are not ineffective, and they are not criminalising an entire generation. They must be used as one element in an overall continuum. Criticism of their use on either of those counts often constitutes a counsel of despair from people who would rather do nothing than help our communities. It should also be recognised that, more often than not, young people themselves are victims of antisocial behaviour. It is important to understand that ASBOs are not just about attacking young people.

Tony McNulty: My remarks are still at the introductory stage, but I think the substance of them has been precisely that. The problem is not the fault of the police or of councils, and prevention is as important as—if not more important than—intervention at the other end to deal with the consequences. That is what I have been saying for the past 10 minutes.
	Perhaps I have confused the hon. Gentleman, rather than the other way around. I certainly agree that the problem should be dealt with further back, as it were; that we should think about housing and the condition of some estates, and about education in discipline and citizenship and other awareness factors in schools. Families are also important in this context, which is why parenting is such a core part of our respect agenda.
	What I was trying to say was that it is a shame that, when antisocial behaviour issues reach the public domain, people tend to concentrate on behavioural excess and our responses to it. As was suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey), where ASBOs have proved effective their success has been largely due to individual support orders, and the work of police, councils and other agencies behind the scenes. I think that we agree on that.
	The December report of the National Audit Office broadly accepts that our approach to tackling antisocial behaviour is working. It builds on the findings of the 2005 Home Affairs Committee report on antisocial behaviour, which not only welcomed the fact that the Government had made tackling such behaviour a priority but concluded that our strategy was about right. It describes the range of far-reaching actions we have taken that have helped to make the policy a success.
	Most people in the NAO's case review sample who had received an antisocial behaviour intervention—an ASBO or an acceptable behaviour contract, for instance—did not re-engage in antisocial behaviour, thus bringing continued respite to the community. I know that there is a debate about breach rates among young people and others, and we will come to that, but it is important to note that the NAO's sample showed that 65 per cent. of people desisted from antisocial behaviour after one intervention and 93 per cent. did so after three. That is encouraging, and reinforces the point that earlier intervention is central to overwhelming success.
	The NAO report acknowledges that areas are making increasing use of the new interventions. More than 13,000 acceptable behaviour contracts were made between October 2003 and 2005, more than 800 areas were designated for dispersal between 2004 and 2005, and powers to close crack houses were used more than 500 times between January 2004 and 2005.
	When I paid a visit to Burnley and Preston, I saw—in Preston, I think—acceptable behaviour contracts working well. I spoke to young people on the wrong end of the contracts and to the police, who, after the serving of contracts, worked with the young people as well as the rest of the community to ensure that they did not "descend" from acceptable behaviour contracts to ASBOs. That is relevant to what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle). The local policing network was taking part in what are loftily called diversionary tactics, which helped keep those young people who were the focus of such contracts on the straight and narrow instead of "descending" into ASBOs.

Tony McNulty: When the report was published on 7 December, I went to the NAO launch event and spoke briefly at it, and I said that I recognise that that is the case. We are at an early stage in a far greater utilisation of the powers than previously—things have been slow—and it is right that there is still much to learn from a growing amount of both anecdotal evidence and empirically based data analysis.
	I am not trying to paint the report or the world of ASBOs as an unqualified success. There are areas that we need to learn about. I am trying in the way that I am opening the debate to set a tone that allows for a proper, reflective and mature discussion rather than knockabout politics. I also accept the implied point that certain elements of the report could be read out in an entirely different way from those on which I am concentrating—that is certainly the case. The comprehensive way in which ASBOs are used and how they are set in the wider context of antisocial behaviour policy—including the preventive point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey)—are relatively new developments. Of course the evidential base is growing and we need to analyse as we go, because whatever array or portfolio of the different elements of the continuum works in Burnley may not work in Southend or anywhere in between. The measures must reflect the needs of the local community.
	The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) has made a fair point, but let me make a wider point. Every time one of these powers—ABCs, dispersal orders, closure of crack houses and other interventions—is used, on the whole it brings relief and respite to local communities, and the lives of Members' constituents are no longer made a misery by a yobbish minority. It is important to state that.
	We also know that our approach is working, because British crime survey statistics show that between 2002-03 and 2005-06 the proportion of people who perceived there to be high levels of antisocial behaviour in their area fell from 21 per cent. to 17 per cent. Therein lies a conundrum, in the sense that the more that we seek to focus on intervention and the outcomes of antisocial behaviour and the more resources that we put into neighbourhood policing, the more—initially, at least—people take an interest in problems of antisocial behaviour and low-level crime and the more their wish to have them resolved is heightened. Such intervention and awareness of problems and possible solutions to them might well increase people's confidence in the ability to seek their resolution. Therefore, to pursue the right hon. Gentleman's point, although I cite in argument those British crime survey statistics, they might well fluctuate. That is relevant to his point about analysis and understanding what is really going on. Nevertheless, the notion that there has been success has been proven.
	We are not complacent. We continue to make improvements in the way in which antisocial behaviour is tackled. We are ensuring that areas are increasingly measured on their effectiveness in tackling antisocial behaviour through the introduction of local area agreements. From—I think—next April, all local authorities in England will have a local area agreement setting out the priorities for that area as agreed, crucially, between local partners and central Government.
	Tackling antisocial behaviour remains at the heart of the Government's wider programme to build a modern culture of respect. The respect programme, which was launched at about this time last year, will step up and broaden the Government's clampdown on antisocial behaviour, promoting good behaviour and challenging bad. The taskforce continues to support, encourage and challenge local services to implement approaches that will build respect and tackle antisocial behaviour, and ensure that communities see and feel that action is being taken.
	To return to the point of the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire), local policy interventions across the piece must not be just an add-on to everything else that is happening in a local community through housing, education, community cohesion or in other ways. All those ways must be—as they increasingly are—inculcated with the notion that antisocial behaviour, and the precursors of it, should be at the centre of all that they do. Providing locally tailored solutions to antisocial behaviour is no easy task. Every perpetrator of antisocial behaviour is different, so one-size-fits-all solutions do not work. As I have said, that is also true for responses on a locality basis; solutions in each constituency or borough must be different given the different natures and make-ups of our communities.
	In consultation with experts in the field, we have equipped those on the ground with the necessary range of tools and powers to do their job in the best way that they see fit. They can tailor use of interventions according to the antisocial behaviour committed and their knowledge of the perpetrator. Our guidance strongly advocates an incremental approach. In practice, that means that to turn around the petty nuisance behaviour of a child at school, an acceptable behaviour agreement can be made; that the group of children who cause a nuisance on a housing estate can be arrested if they fail to abide by a dispersal order; that there are fixed penalty notices for litter louts and those who cause disorder; and that, for the persistent perpetrator of antisocial behaviour, the courts can make an ASBO.
	Alongside those measures, £45 million of additional funding has been made available to youth offending teams through the Youth Justice Board to develop and enhance a range of evidence-based preventive programmes. Those schemes enable young people who are referred to be supported and challenged in order to address the underlying causes of their antisocial behaviour. Effective sanctions are available for those who do not comply and there is support throughout the process in order to change bad behaviour. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport suggested, for young people given an ASBO we have created the individual support order and the parenting order to tackle the root causes of their behaviour and to achieve that preventive dimension.
	An effective approach to tackling antisocial behaviour must be based on a mixture of support, sanction and, crucially, prevention, as well as intervention. The key aims of any intervention are to enable the individual to recognise the consequences of their behaviour, to ensure that they change their behaviour, to protect victims, witnesses and the community, and to provide the support and education required to address the behaviour.
	We have taken huge strides in providing those tools and powers and we are now consulting on whether we need to strengthen them further with new measures, including proposals for a deferred penalty notice for disorder. That will encourage adherence to acceptable behaviour contracts by attaching a penalty notice for disorder which would come into effect only if the contracts were breached. I hesitated a moment ago because my speaking notes say "incentivise" and I refuse to use such words; "encourage" or "motivate" are better. We are also proposing new powers to close premises that cause persistent, significant and serious harm to local communities, but as a last resort and backed up by court order.
	I also want to highlight what we are doing to tackle antisocial behaviour by young people. However, let me again stress that antisocial behaviour is not primarily a youth issue, as many believe. The latest statistics on ASBOs, published on 7 December, show that nearly 60 per cent. of ASBOs were issued to adults and only 40 per cent. to children. We are working harder than ever to divert young people from antisocial behaviour, and I should like to highlight the good work that the Youth Justice Board is doing in this respect. It is one of the many partners that must be at the table in looking at antisocial behaviour interventions in communities such as those in my hon. Friends' constituencies.
	In 2005-06, youth offending teams delivered parenting interventions in respect of 11,007 young people with final-warning interventions and community-based penalties; that is more than double the estimated number delivered in 2003-04. Of those interventions, 87 per cent. were delivered on a voluntary basis, and 13 per cent. under parenting orders. Most parents are willing to engage without a contract or order, but where more structure is needed a contract can be offered. Where parents are not willing to engage in tackling the child's behaviour voluntarily, a parenting order can be made. YOTs will also be providing more parenting support, using funds provided through the 2004 spending review and the 2005 Budget, with a focus on preventing youth crime and antisocial behaviour. Many colleagues present will know that in every area there is a hard core of persistent antisocial behaviour offenders, just as there is in respect of a range of other crimes. Our job is to try to turn around those offenders, as well as to deal with them in other ways if that does not happen. Equally, we must ensure that what is a minority of yobs is not added to by that potential reservoir.
	Some 84 YOTs are putting in place targeted parenting programmes that are aimed at preventing offending or antisocial behaviour by children. The funding for these programmes amounted to some £4 million in 2006-07, and it will be £5.5 million next year. It should pay for several thousand more parenting interventions, which will be counted toward a YOT performance target and reported to the Youth Justice Board. That new funding is also being used to develop parenting services directed at young fathers, black or minority ethnic parents and young parents in custody. Most YOTs are also putting in place youth inclusion programmes and youth inclusion and support panels, which deliver parenting interventions as part of a package of support for at-risk young people. As was pointed out earlier, the make-up of families and their at times apparently dysfunctional nature is a factor, which is why I am particularly pleased about these interventions on young fathers and on young mothers—with or without the father in tow. That must be part of the overall process.
	I hope that I have given a broad perspective on what we are doing to tackle antisocial behaviour in its wider context, and I hope that Members will bear it mind that little, if anything, was done about these problems before the introduction of ASBOs and the various other tools and powers. Given that a lot of Members want to speak and that we had a statement earlier today, I have deliberately curtailed my remarks, while still generously taking interventions, which is why my speech nevertheless lasted for 27 minutes. I hope that the debate on this young and growing public policy area, which matters to all our communities, will be conducted in a reflective and mature spirit. When they say that they will no longer put up with such behaviour, they now have a framework to deal with it. That will improve the lot of our communities throughout the country. I want to thank the Youth Justice Board, the youth offending teams and everyone involved at local level in the eradication of antisocial behaviour, which can only be in the best interest of every Member of this House.

Nick Herbert: Antisocial behaviour is of enormous and growing concern to the public and to this House. In a survey conducted by University College London last May, the UK was thought by respondents to be Europe's worst country for antisocial behaviour, with more than three quarters of them believing that Britain had a "big or moderate problem". The cost of responding to reports of antisocial behaviour in England and Wales is £3.4 billion a year, and approximately one in five people now perceives a high level of antisocial behaviour, according to the British crime survey. A count of antisocial behaviour conducted by the Home Office in September 2003 came up with a total of more than 66,000 reports of antisocial behaviour in one day. That is equivalent to 16.5 million incidents a year.
	A number of official indicators of antisocial behaviour show an increase. Of the seven strands that make up the measure, three have shown an increase since 2004-05— teenagers hanging around on the streets, people being drunk or rowdy in public places, an issue to which I shall return, and noisy neighbours or loud parties. This is primarily, but certainly not exclusively, an urban problem. The British crime survey found that people living in urban areas were twice as likely as those living in rural areas to perceive high levels of antisocial behaviour. Social renters were almost twice as likely as those in owner-occupied or private rented accommodation to experience high levels of perceived antisocial behaviour. However, the key point is surely that antisocial behaviour affects the poorest in our society the most, and disproportionately. In addition, the fear of youth crime is rising. Nearly a third of people now believe that young people hanging around on street corners represents a serious problem; significantly, that is an increase from the approximately one quarter who believed that as short a time ago as 1996.
	Antisocial behaviour can be nuisance behaviour, but much of the time it is neighbourhood crime and should be dealt with accordingly. The use of abusive or intimidating language and drunken behaviour are crimes, and our concern about the Government's response is that too much of it involves keeping such offenders out of the courts, while failing to tackle the offences that are taking place. Let us consider the essential part of the Government's toolkit: antisocial behaviour orders. The National Audit Office report shows that more than half—55 per cent.—of ASBOs are breached. Of those breaches, more than a third—35 per cent.—occurred on more than five occasions. In my county of Sussex, there are four breaches for every ASBO that has been issued. Some 79 per cent. of those who receive an ASBO have previous convictions, and the average number of convictions for those with previous convictions is a staggering 26.

Nick Herbert: Well, there are a number of problems. First, it may be the case that the courts are not being tough enough, but they are of course under pressure not to produce custodial sentences because the Government have not planned for sufficient for prison places. Secondly, there are many offenders who should have been dealt with in the courts in the first place, rather than through this remedy. Nevertheless, it is unacceptable that such a low number of breaches are dealt with through custodial sentences, and I am happy to agree with the hon. Gentleman on that point.
	The Youth Justice Board report, published in November last year, claimed that
	"Parents commonly argued that ASBOs functioned as a 'badge of honour', rather than addressing the causes of the behaviour."
	The report also found that nearly half of the young people whose case files were reviewed had been returned to court for failure to comply with their order. It is also clear from the report that young people do not understand the antisocial behaviour regime. It showed that many young people did not understand the details of the orders that were placed on them.
	Given the level of breaches, it is not surprising that MORI research shows a lack of public confidence in ASBOs. An Ipsos MORI research report, published in June last year, six months after the launch of the Respect action plan, found that nearly half of people think that ASBOs are not effective at stopping antisocial behaviour. In December, the Minister said:
	"I don't accept a breach of an ASBO is the failure of an ASBO."
	In that case, what constitutes success? Is it a failure if an offender breaches parole? Is it a failure if a suspect jumps bail? Is it a failure if a prisoner absconds? Why then is it a success if someone breaches an ASBO? That is plainly nonsense.
	The Permanent Secretary at the Home Office told the Public Accounts Committee on Monday that
	"If you step out of line, the breach is enforced."
	But it is not, as we have just heard. There are a minimal number of custodial sentences for ASBO breaches. The National Audit Office report pointed out that more than half of those issued with ASBOs engaged in further acts of antisocial behaviour during their order.
	It is the same story with acceptable behaviour contracts, which are broken by more than 60 per cent. of those under 18. The NAO report states:
	"Acceptable behaviour contracts are the most frequently used intervention for which data is available...however, contracts were less effective with people aged under 18 where just over 60 per cent. of our cases displayed further anti-social behaviour."
	The credibility of the Government's flagship policy to deal with antisocial behaviour is severely undermined by the failure to enforce the orders.
	Secondly, there is the problem of evaluation, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) has already raised. That is surely fundamental to the effectiveness of the regime. The NAO noted:
	"The absence of formal evaluation by the Home Office of the success of different interventions and of the impact of providing support services in conjunction with the interventions prevents local areas targeting interventions in the most efficient way to achieve the best outcome for the least cost."
	In December 2005, Baroness Scotland said in a written answer:
	"The Home Office is conducting an evaluation of ASBOs, the findings of which will be available in spring 2006".—[ Official Report, House of Lords, 7 December 2005; Vol. 676, c. WA100.]
	In November 2006, the Minister in the other place said:
	"The qualitative aspect of the study highlighted a wide range of views on a number of issues, but there were few common themes underlying the findings. We are therefore conducting further analysis of the data...Publication is now planned for the new year."—[ Official Report, House of Lords, 28 November 2006; Vol. 687, c. WA37.]
	So there has been a delay of well over a year for the promised evaluation of ASBOs.
	Extraordinarily, neither the Permanent Secretary at the Home Office nor the head of the Respect taskforce, Louise Casey, knew about that study when they were questioned by the PAC on Monday. Sir David Normington said:
	"I am afraid I do not know about that."
	Louise Casey said the same. We know that the head of the Respect taskforce has a dislike of evidence-based policy making. She once infamously said that there is an obsession with evidence-based policy in No. 10. We are certainly getting used to the collective amnesia in the Home Office, but we should be able to expect that the Permanent Secretary and the head of the Respect agenda know that an evaluation of ASBOs is being conducted. That evaluation is fundamental to the ability of this House and the wider public to judge whether or not ASBOs are a success and its absence is a fundamental weakness in the Government's case.
	The third concern that we have about ASBOs is whether it is right that they are applied as a civil instrument to deal with persistent offenders who should be dealt with by the courts. The NAO noted that a small core of people repeatedly engaged in antisocial behaviour. Around a fifth of its sample received more than half of all the interventions and that group had an average of 50 criminal convictions. The report also said:
	"There was...a hard core of perpetrators for whom interventions had limited impact."
	It is clear that ASBOs are an ineffective and inappropriate instrument to deal with hardened criminal behaviour, and that a minority of offenders should be dealt with in the courts and properly sentenced, so that victims can be assured that action has been taken. But the Government's approach is the opposite. It is increasingly to develop what they call summary justice, so that such cases are not dealt with in the courts. That summary justice is, increasingly, soft justice.
	 The Sunday Telegraph recently reported that a woman who falsely accused a man of raping her was released with nothing more than a penalty notice for disorder and an £80 fine. If her story had been believed, the man she accused could have been jailed for life. If that woman had been taken to court, she could have been jailed for six months for making false rape allegations. How can it possibly have been appropriate to impose a penalty notice for disorder and a £80 fine in such circumstances?
	Destroying or damaging property, which in court could incur a fine of up to £2,500 or three months in prison, can now be punished with an £80 fine. Whether the fine is £80 or £100—the proposed increase—it is simply not high enough to deter a persistent criminal. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (James Brokenshire) has revealed, penalty notices for disorder are increasingly being used to punish shoplifting of goods under the value of £200. Nearly 22,000 penalty notices for disorder were issued for shoplifting in 2005 and nearly 17,000 in the first six months of 2006. Even if the maximum penalty is increased to £100, a shoplifter has only to get away with one in three thefts to break even or one in two to make a £100 profit. That allows shoplifters to make a substantial profit by achieving only a 50 per cent. success rate with very low risks.
	Paying a penalty notice for disorder is not even an admission of guilt. If a defendant pays within 21 days, they do not even get a criminal record. They are, in the words of my hon. Friend,
	"little more than glorified parking tickets."
	A spokesman for the British Retail Consortium said:
	"This sends the wrong message to criminals. It tells them they have a licence to steal and won't get any serious punishment."
	Just as ASBOs are regarded as a badge of honour, some yobs, in the words of Richard Garside, director of the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies, see penalty notices for disorder as
	"the perfect end to a day out".
	To them, an instant fine is far more attractive than being taken through the court system. What is more, each penalty notice for disorder costs £91 to administer, meaning that the Government actually lose money on each one.
	In September last year, the sentencing policy and penalties unit in the Home Office even suggested that
	"serious crimes such as assaulting a police officer and mugging"
	could be made punishable by a penalty notice for disorder to keep hundreds of thousands of offenders out of court. Not surprisingly, those plans did not make it into the Government's consultation paper on antisocial behaviour, published in November. But the suggestion alone indicates just how out of touch the Home Office is with the public. It has a strange notion of what constitutes proper justice.

Nick Herbert: I strongly agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I shall deal with exactly that point in a moment.
	A report from the centre for crime and justice studies at King's college showed that, from March 2004 to March 2006, the proportion of offences brought to justice that resulted in a successful conviction fell from just under 70 per cent. to 53 per cent. By that measure, the true justice gap—the failure to bring offences to justice—may have increased over the past two years because, if penalty notices for disorder involve no admission of guilt, can they really be considered to be true justice? The Government have taken hundreds of thousands of quite serious cases out of the courts and punished criminals with little more than a slap on the wrist.
	The Government's latest idea, outlined in the November consultation paper, is a deferred penalty notice for disorder. The proposal would mean that a fine would not be payable for up to six months, or might even not be paid at all. In effect, the notice would be a warning that the offender would receive a warning. I wonder whether the Government plan to count those deferred penalty notices for disorder as offences brought to justice. That would certainly help their detection rates.
	Summary justice increasingly means soft justice. In the words of a chief Crown prosecutor, it amounts to
	"pay-as-you-go hooliganism."
	Summary justice can also lead to injustice. The Minister knows, because I have raised this matter with him before, that a stallholder at the royal Norfolk show in July 2006 was fined £80 and given a penalty notice for disorder by the police. His offence was that he displayed a T-shirt that the report in  The Times said bore the slogan "Bollocks to Blair".

Robert Goodwill: The non-emergency number in north Yorkshire is 0800 606 0247. Is that not slightly more difficult to remember than the number that my hon. Friend suggests that we should adopt?

Nick Herbert: I listened to my hon. Friend's question with great interest. The chief constable of Essex is a good and robust officer, and I imagine that he would be keen to take action against gang leaders. I hope to have a meeting with him shortly, and I shall be interested to hear his explanation. In the context of the Serious Crime Bill, we will hear the Government's proposals for taking action against serious criminals. We will have to examine closely the extent to which that will substitute for proper action that results in offences being taken to court. Just such a substitution has happened in relation to more minor crimes and antisocial behaviour.
	The Respect action plan concedes that alcohol misuse is a driver of antisocial behaviour, but it has almost nothing to say about how to deal with the problem. Perhaps that is not surprising given that the head of the Respect taskforce supported binge drinking on the grounds that
	"Doing things sober is no way to get things done."
	Figures published in June 2006 show that the percentage of people saying that they have a "very" or "fairly" big problem with drunken or rowdy behaviour in public places in their area increased from 23 per cent. in July 2004-05 to 25 per cent. in July 2005-06. We know that 70 per cent. of peak-time accident and emergency admissions are alcohol-related. We all know the problems faced in our communities—whether rural or urban—from drunken and disorderly behaviour, which blights people's lives, especially on Friday and Saturday evenings.
	We shall have to see whether the Government's deregulation of licensing hours was a sensible response to the problem, but we already know that the Minister's predecessor, the former Respect Minister, now the Minister without Portfolio, the right hon. Member for Salford (Hazel Blears), is deeply pessimistic. She blames the "Anglo-Saxon mentality" and says that people "enjoy getting drunk". Perhaps they do, but the communities that suffer the consequences do not enjoy it, and any serious plan to address antisocial behaviour should address the problem of binge drinking.

Nick Herbert: As far as I can remember, we supported the alcohol disorder reduction zones, and I debated the issue with the Minister on the Floor of the House. We shall support any measures that we think will be effective and successful in dealing with the problem of binge drinking. It is the Government who have a case to answer for the relaxation they undertook, despite evidence that the problem was increasing, especially among young people. We will see whether that decision was wise.
	Every year there are millions of antisocial behaviour incidents, but only about 10,000 ASBOs have been issued in six years. A significant proportion of them were imposed in Greater Manchester and London, but the total for other areas is only a few hundred. The problem of antisocial behaviour is much too wide to be solved by ASBOs alone, although to be fair to the Minister, he recognised that. When I was reviewing some of the things that the public had said about antisocial behaviour, I was struck by the comments of Jill Smith of the Heartsease residents association in Norwich. She said:
	"There are people on this estate with ASBOs, yet there is still a lot of crime, they do not seem to be working. For some people getting an ASBO is great. We are totally disillusioned by how crime is being dealt with around here."
	ASBOs may bring specific relief, but there is little evidence that antisocial behaviour is abating overall.
	The Home Office has set an arbitrary target: by 2007 or 2008, the percentage of people who feel that antisocial behaviour is a "very" or "fairly" big problem should be lower than a baseline year. The baseline year chosen is 2002-03, when the figure was 21 per cent., but the figure has never been more than that. As the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies said:
	"As with the crime-related targets set by Labour, this might be an example of another target being set with little risk of it being missed."
	The perception that antisocial behaviour is a serious problem is rising again; the figure is currently 17 per cent. How effective have the Government's frenetic interventions been?
	The key to a more effective approach must lie in a new focus on prevention, as well as on more effective remedial measures. As the head of the National Audit Office, Sir John Bourne, said:
	"The Home Office should consider developing, and implementing further, more preventive measures to tackle causes of antisocial behaviour."
	That was, of course, an echo of the Prime Minister's famous pledge, but as our social justice policy group report said:
	"Tony Blair used to talk about tackling the causes of crime. He no longer does; instead his Government's attitude has become reactive and short-term."
	The report pointed out that
	"the majority of young offenders come from broken homes, have drug addiction and alcohol abuse habits, the academic age of a child of 11 and many of these young people have mental health problems...become members of street gangs...The increasingly dysfunctional society...is one that breeds criminality. To be tough on the causes of crime, the causes first have to be properly understood".
	The report identified family breakdown and educational failure as two of the major drivers of crime.
	The Prime Minister's strategy unit recently estimated that problem families whose members commit crime, live on benefits and have poor health cost the state up to £250,000 a year every year. By contrast, the NAO reports research from the United States, which shows that the savings from diverting an individual from a life of antisocial behaviour and crime range from £0.9 million to £1.2 million a year. It makes economic as well as social sense to look more creatively at the type of interventions that the NAO says will work and which are cost-effective, including special education programmes and support for families.
	The Government stab at such solutions in the Respect action plan, but their approach reflects their belief—no doubt honestly held—that top-down central intervention really can change things on the ground. It rarely can, and in the case of antisocial behaviour, it has not.
	We believe that a new approach is needed, which epitomises our belief in social responsibility—that we all, not just the state, have obligations to our neighbours and communities, and that politicians should put trust in people and the local associations that they naturally form. That means ensuring that voluntary organisations and local communities are empowered to participate in the organisation of community safety.

Nicholas Soames: My hon. Friend and I are neighbours and I have discussed the matter with him before, but does he agree that part of the problem of people's lack of confidence in how antisocial behaviour is dealt with is knowing who is responsible—who actually takes responsibility—for it. There is no doubt that the multi-agency approach is essential, but it is absolutely vital that the people concerned know who is accountable for delivering a solution to this wretched curse of antisocial behaviour.

Mary Creagh: Antisocial behaviour is a blight on our communities and the Government make no apology for taking the action needed to tackle it.
	We have been tough on antisocial behaviour. We have not only increased resources going to the police and local authorities, giving them the tools and the powers they need to crack down on troublemakers, but we have also been tough on the causes of antisocial behaviour. This Labour Government have also worked to tackle social exclusion and bad parenting, to relieve poverty and improve poor housing. I reject the allegation that we are not keen on tackling the causes of antisocial behaviour.
	Along with many other Members, I am sure, I receive letters and e-mails from constituents who feel that their community is blighted by low-level crime and irresponsible behaviour. In Wakefield, we are lucky to have some extraordinary people who have stood up to antisocial behaviour and transformed the community—and I would like to make special mention of three of them.
	Sue Thomson lives on Aysgarth, which is part of the huge Lupset housing estate in west Wakefield. In 2002, Aysgarth had a nickname—the Bronx. It was gripped by antisocial behaviour, with residents enduring trouble almost every night. People's lives were blighted by burnt-out cars, vandalism, and loud music. Drug-taking took place openly on the streets and fireworks were let off as a signal to drug addicts to come and get their fix. Sue set up the Aysgarth community association and badgered the local council and police for help. The council has now refurbished many of the squalid one-bedroom flats that used to house the drug dealers. The rest were bulldozed. Four years on, the estate is almost trouble free. People used to sympathise with Sue about living in Aysgarth, but now they want to live there. Sue's tenacity has transformed her area and she is a credit to her community.
	Hazel Chowcat is another woman who has made a difference. Last year, the Calder Grove area of Wakefield saw large groups of young people loitering on street corners, drinking, being unruly and generally causing traffic problems. A parish councillor for West Bretton, Hazel worked with the local neighbourhood police teams to identify the young people involved. They met the parents and agreed acceptable behaviour contracts—and they worked. The Home Secretary visited Calder Grove in May 2006 and saw for himself how those teams had reduced the problems in their community.
	I have received many complaints about young people riding mini-motorbikes, which terrorise older people, younger children and pets. Mini-motorbikes are dangerous, antisocial and illegal. Councillor Ron Halliday represents Wakefield East ward, which covers the Eastmoor and Portobello estates. Ron took me out to Portobello to show me the damage that those bikes had caused. They are simply a death-trap for children, yet I have never seen any young rider wearing a helmet. Ron has been campaigning to stop young people riding mini-motos and to educate parents about the dangers of letting their children ride them. Mini-motos cost at least a couple of hundred pounds and I cannot understand why parents insist on buying them for their children. Ron's work is improving lives and could even save lives.
	I would like to turn now to the problems that we face in our city centre. Wakefield's Westgate area is famous for its clubs and bars, but recently it has become a magnet for drink-fuelled antisocial behaviour, particularly on Friday and Saturday nights. Wakefield, known as "the Merrie city" since mediaeval times on account of the quality of its pubs, was getting a terrible reputation. Families were afraid to venture out after dark and the Wakefield theatre and restaurants claimed that brawling drunkards were scaring people away.
	I therefore went on the infamous Westgate run myself in February last year, accompanied by Inspector Dave Westwood and Chief Superintendent Mark Whyman. I stayed out till 2am on Sunday morning—the latest I have been out since I was elected to this place.

Mary Creagh: I began by visiting a CCTV control room— [Interruption.] It was all quite entertaining: it is certainly a different city after 10 o'clock at night. I visited the CCTV control room, which is linked to officers on the ground. At 1.30 in the morning, it was fascinating to recognise people that I had seen from the control room at 9 pm now sitting in the cells and the booking area having been arrested. From the CCTV and the radio-ing backwards and forwards, it was easy to spot the troublemakers about four hours before it all started. It was a revelation.
	I saw that arresting people takes huge amounts of officer time. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister visited Wakefield last summer and is aware of the booking-in problems at Wakefield station. We cannot tackle 21st century crime in 19th century buildings. Right at the end of the evening, outside the police station, I also witnessed the arrest of an extremely drunk and highly aggressive young man. I will not repeat the language that was used, Madam Deputy Speaker, but it was a stream of four-letter words—the worst two that can be thought of, so I will leave it to your imagination. When he was told to stop, he repeated the words insistently. Later in the cells, he indignantly demanded to see a senior officer to complain about his detention. However, he soon piped down when it was pointed out to him that he had been arrested by the chief superintendent, accompanied by an inspector and witnessed by his MP.
	The police city centre team, led by Inspector Dave Westwood, has transformed the landscape of Wakefield city centre. There has been a 25 per cent. reduction in violent incidents on Westgate in the last two years. I know that anecdotes do not make evidence, but that fact represents a real reduction in the levels of violent crime. Wakefield's Labour council also deserves praise for playing its part. It has introduced a traffic order banning cars from Westgate on weekend nights better to manage the flow of people and taxis and to stop people who have taken too much to drink falling under the wheels of cars. It has also brought in an alcohol exclusion zone to stop street drinking in the city centre during the daytime.
	The Church, too, has played its part. A pilot street angels scheme involves volunteers patrolling the city centre to offer help to those who may be vulnerable or in danger because of drugs or drink. They provide a reassuring, sober presence on busy weekend nights and their interventions are estimated to have saved the lives of four people in the last month alone. I am delighted that that scheme will be formally launched next month. I would also like to highlight the work done by our local newspaper, the  Wakefield Express. In December 2004, it launched a campaign called Streetsafe to improve the safety of the city centre, improve the city's image and reduce alcohol-related violence. Its campaign was nominated for a national press award and given a commendation from the divisional commander of West Yorkshire police.

Mary Creagh: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I know that he takes an interest in the police, because I bumped into him in the force training school in August last year. He and I were both spending time with West Yorkshire police force. I have heard anecdotal evidence from the police that things such as drinking banning orders are incredibly effective because they divide people from their drinking buddies and they know that they are banned from their own local clubs. I do not know what the rate of breach of ASBOs is in Wakefield. I know that the council has issued 155, but I do not know how many have been breached. It is obviously important to take into account the reasons for those breaches and their nature. We need to look much more creatively at how we use ASBOs and at making them more personalised to the individual. I will come to that later.
	I pay tribute to everyone who works tirelessly against antisocial behaviour in Wakefield by standing up for decency, running sports and youth clubs and standing up for the silent majority. They are a credit to our city. But the success of their work in tackling antisocial behaviour is also a credit to the measures that the Government have brought in. I am not going to rehearse the police numbers. Suffice it to say that West Yorkshire police have seen 600 more police officers in the last 10 years and the successful introduction of police community support officers, which Opposition peers voted against in the other place.
	This is about the police engaging with communities. The introduction of neighbourhood policing has been a step change in the way in which we deal with antisocial behaviour. Last summer, as I said, I spent three days attached to Wakefield police. I went out on the beat with the safer neighbourhoods team in the Agbrigg, Belle Vue and Portobello areas to see how their new working methods are helping to restore respect by providing reassurance, and tackling antisocial behaviour and low-level crime. I visited the Portobello estate with neighbourhood beat officer Eddie Davis. We spotted a mini-motorcyclist. The officer did not give chase, because it could have been dangerous, and potentially fatal, for that young person. Eddie Davis did not need to give chase to that young person. To my amazement, he already knew the child's name and address. He had confiscated one mini-moto already from the boy and that child was about to lose his second mini-moto. Those new seizure powers were introduced by this Labour Government and they are helping the police to make life better on the Portobello estate.
	I also took the officer to visit people in a street where I had conducted a roving surgery and where they had complained to me about the activities of drug dealers. Those people's lives are being ruined by people turning up late at night and people sleeping in cars outside the houses. One of the residents told me that a drug user had come knocking on his door at 1 o'clock in the morning, looking for the dealer's house, accompanied by a three-year-old child. When we talk about the help that parents need, there can be no excuses for a civilised society to say that it is acceptable for any three-year-old to be out at 1 o'clock in the morning while his carer, father, uncle or babysitter—whoever that adult was—is out looking for drugs to get a fix. Anything that we can do to make the lives of those children better is to be welcomed.
	I would like publicly to thank the officers from the neighbourhood policing team who have started to accompany me on joint roving surgeries, both in our city centre tower blocks and on the Eastmoor estate. It is clear that Sergeant David Monaghan-Jones, PCSO Helen Pickles and PCSO Victoria Mann have established warm and productive relationships with the local communities and tenants' organisations, particularly in the city centre. I went out and about with them last November. One lady who answered her door said to me, "It's just like the olden days. We know who our officers are. We know that they are around. We recognise the work that they are doing in the city centre." It was clear from listening to the interaction of the police with those tenants that they knew what the tenants could see—and how they could help the police to tackle crime in the city centre—from their tower block windows. They could see the drug dealers in the city centre car parks, where the dealers know that CCTV does not reach. There was a true spirit of co-operation. The men and women who serve as police officers or PCSOs in Wakefield do an incredibly tough and often harrowing job with professionalism, enthusiasm, dedication and good humour.
	The council also deserves praise for taking the problem of antisocial behaviour seriously. It uses the Government's neighbourhood renewal fund to put teams of neighbourhood action patrollers on to the streets. In Wakefield, we are fortunate that people have one telephone number that they can call to report antisocial behaviour. There are joint patrols and there is a police inspector permanently based with those neighbourhood patrollers to ensure that information is shared effectively. Antisocial behaviour, whether it is fly-tipping, drug dealing or noise nuisance, can be reported. That enables problems to be tackled from both a council and a police perspective so that powers can be combined and information shared more effectively.
	Opposition Members may dismiss ASBOs as a gimmick, but they are not. They are a vital tool to tackle antisocial behaviour. They help to protect young people, individuals and the community from the harms caused by antisocial behaviour and they are effective. The Government have not only brought in measures to tackle antisocial behaviour, we have done a huge amount of work in tackling the underlying causes. We know that poor housing can blight whole areas and create a bad reputation. The Government's commitment to make all council and social housing fit to live in and decent by 2010 is one of our least praised policies. However, it is transforming the lives of Wakefield's residents by giving them warm, safe and modern homes in which to live. Such physical regeneration, together with the growing role for tenants in shaping their own environments, is transforming communities. Last week, I was delighted that regulations were laid before Parliament that will give tenant management organisations powers to apply for ASBOs. That is another step towards making social transformation a reality throughout the country.
	I called my local neighbourhood police yesterday to ask their opinion of what more is needed to help them in their fight against this scourge. Inspector Karen Bailes was keen to impress on me the importance of parents taking responsibility for their children's actions. I have already mentioned the child who had one mini-motorbike confiscated, yet whose family seemed to think that it was acceptable to buy him another one and for him to continue to break the law. Many children's first brush with the police is through low-level antisocial behaviour—a bit of graffiti here, some verbal abuse there; or perhaps throwing stones at a window. Neighbourhood police officers can identify problem children, but they are most successful when working with parents who take responsibility for their children's actions and help their children to learn that such behaviour is unacceptable.

Philip Davies: I totally agree with the hon. Lady. The community support officers in her constituency and mine whom I have had the pleasure to meet do a fantastic job. However, when I spent time out late at night with CSOs in my constituency, I noticed that some of the yobs and thugs whom the officers try to move on and disperse do not treat the officers with the respect that they should because they do not see them as real police officers. Many CSOs to whom I have spoken have encountered that problem. If they had more powers, such as the ability to use handcuffs, more respect for them might be fostered. Has the hon. Lady given any thought to whether CSOs should be given more tools so that the yobs and thugs will treat them with the respect they deserve?

Jeremy Browne: Thank you for calling me in this debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I propose to talk a little about the scope of the problem, and then to discuss the party political dimension, because I know that that has been contentious in the past. After that I will perhaps discuss possible solutions.
	On the scope of the problem, like many other Members, including no doubt the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh), I regularly go out into the constituency, knocking on doors and talking to people, and I ask them, "What causes you the most concern? What is the greatest issue that you face in your community?" A number of issues come up, but three do so routinely. One of them is development in the area—house building, traffic congestion, and issues of that sort. Another is the council tax. Unsurprisingly, that issue comes up a lot when the bills start arriving through people's doors. However, the issue that comes up far more often than any of the others—in fact, more often than every other area of Government policy combined—is the wide, amorphous problem of antisocial behaviour.
	Different people mean different things by antisocial behaviour. I accept the point made by the Conservative spokesman, the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert): sometimes, when people describe antisocial behaviour, they are really talking about crime, pure and simple. They are talking about criminal acts. However, the term includes vandalism, graffiti, late-night noise and behaviour that is inconsiderate but that may not be regarded as criminal. It undoubtedly blights the lives of millions of our fellow citizens.
	It is fair to say that if the House's priorities reflected people's priorities in my constituency and, I suspect, every other constituency, we would discuss the matter not just this week but every single week that the House sits. I am grateful for the privilege of speaking on behalf of my party, as there is no greater Liberal issue. We must make sure that people do not feel so insecure in their own home or so unsafe in their neighbourhood that they dare not venture beyond their front door after dark. At this time of year, they are effectively under voluntary house arrest for 12 hours a day, so it is imperative that we address their concerns.

Kevan Jones: As the hon. Gentleman takes pride in speaking on behalf of his party, will he explain why the Liberal Democrats opposed every single measure introduced by the Government to tackle antisocial behaviour, including dispersal orders?

Jeremy Browne: As the hon. Gentleman has only just come into the Chamber, he will not have heard the Minister's opening remarks, when he said how constructive he wished to be about these matters. The hon. Gentleman may be out of tune with those on his Front Bench. I shall answer the question in considerable detail, as I know how much it interests Members.
	In 1998 the Liberal Democrats supported the Crime and Disorder Bill. We asked legitimate questions, as any Opposition party would, about whether the Government had thought through every detail of ASBOs. The other example that Labour Members, in particular, cite is the Anti-social Behaviour Bill in 2003, which my party voted against. As we made clear throughout, there were measures in that Bill that we supported—for example, the powers to close down crack houses—but it is fair to say that there were aspects, particularly to do with dispersal orders, about which we had reservations. In a free society, it is right for opposition parties to have reservations about the power of the state to restrict people's freedom of association. That is what we argued in the House.

Jeremy Browne: I will give way to hon. Members shortly when I have finished this section.
	There is an interesting National Audit Office report that compared different types of intervention. It started with the warning letter, saying that the cost of issuing such a letter was £63 and that the success rate was 63 per cent. Then it moved on to acceptable behaviour contracts—as pioneered by typically innovative and imaginative Liberal Democrats in local government. They cost £230 but are marginally more successful than the warning letter, with a success rate of 65 per cent.
	Now we get to antisocial behaviour orders— [Interruption.] Let me finish my National Audit Office point. The Government and some of their friends on the Conservative Benches are hanging their hat on ASBOs. The cost is not £230, like that of acceptable behaviour contracts, but £3,100—more than a dozen times greater. Anyone who is concerned about efficient public spending will follow my argument. One would believe that, for all that extra money and the claims that Labour Back Benchers make, the success rate would be 90 or 95 per cent. However, instead of being even 65 per cent. successful, like the acceptable behaviour contracts, the success rate is 45 per cent. That is telling.
	It is no wonder that the previous Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), said on 3 March 2005 on BBC television that antisocial behaviour contracts were "better" than ASBOs. The latter have an important part to play, and one would be happy if one were among the 45 per cent. whose problem was resolved through them. I am happy for those people and I believe that ASBOs can make a contribution. However, when the Minister, Labour Back Benchers and some of their keener supporters on the Conservative Back Benches claim that the ASBO is the defining issue, and none of the cheaper, more constructive and more successful measures have a part to play, they do their constituents a disservice.

Simon Burns: I am a simple seeker after facts. Twelve minutes have now passed since the hon. Member for North Durham asked the hon. Gentleman why the Liberal Democrats voted against ASBOs in Committee. Will he please answer the question?

Jeremy Browne: My hon. Friend makes a good point. The issue of the national phone number was raised earlier. Certain straightforward measures could be taken to alleviate public concern in this regard, and it is extraordinary that the Government are unable to take those measures much more quickly than they are.
	The point that I was trying to develop before that series of interventions is that antisocial behaviour orders have a role to play. They are one of the clubs available to the golfer, to use a golfing analogy, but they are not the sole solution to the problem. The problems are much greater, as other hon. Members have said, and tackling them when an offence has already been committed and the people who have had their lives blighted have already suffered is too late in the process to be ideal. That is not to say that they do not need to be tackled at that stage, but we need to try to intervene much earlier in the process.
	I remember taking part in a church debate in my constituency during the general election campaign, in which a couple of hundred people took part. The question of police numbers came up, and of which candidates supported additional community policing. Unsurprisingly, all the candidates claimed that they supported additional community policing, but I was in the enviable position of being able to make that claim more plausibly because my party was committed to abolishing identity cards and using the money to resource extra community policing over and above what the Labour party was able to offer. None the less, we all talked in those terms.
	I then asked the audience of 200 churchgoers, "What is it that will prevent you from vandalising car wing mirrors as you walk back to your homes this evening? Is it the prospect of being caught by the police?" The chances of being caught red-handed by the police and being convicted for that offence are extremely small. Even if police numbers were doubled, or quintupled, it would still be extremely unlikely that anyone would be caught. So why did those 200 people not choose—I assume that they did not—to vandalise any car wing mirrors? It was because they knew that it would be wrong. They knew that it would be an inconsiderate way to behave towards other people.
	We need to imbue in people a sense of neighbourliness, community spirit, fraternity and awareness of other people's suffering. There are a number of ways in which we can do that. There is no magic solution, however. If it were that easy, the problem would already have been solved and we would be discussing something else this afternoon. Schools have a role to play, with the leadership and discipline that they provide, and the example that they set. Parents also have a crucial role to play in setting an example as they bring up their children. National role models, such as those whom children and young people see on television, also have an important role to play, although some have not been as impressive as they should be recently. Role models in people's homes and communities are also important.

Mary Creagh: In the past, the hon. Gentleman's party's policy has been to allow 16 and 17-year-olds both to purchase and appear in hard-core pornography. How does objectification of women contribute to the work of schools, churches and parents in providing effective role models to encourage young people away from antisocial behaviour? Does his party still have that policy?

Simon Burns: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I fully agree with anyone who is critical of the reduction in the number of police officers, because my party has spent a considerable amount of time not only increasing them when in Government, but calling for more of them since we left office. The only reason why I intervened on the last occasion was that, true to form, Liberal Democrats make claims that do not necessarily have much in common with what actually happened. To claim to support PCSOs when they condemned them when the Government announced that they would be introduced seems rather difficult to do—and amazing even for a Liberal Democrat.

Meg Hillier: First, let me acknowledge the contributions of previous speakers, particularly for the benefit of those Members who have been unable to be in attendance throughout the debate. Of course, we heard first from my hon. Friend the Minister, and I should apologise to him—and to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker—for arriving a tad late for that contribution as I was coming from a Standing Committee sitting.
	We then heard from the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert). I could say many things about his speech, but let me pick up on one point that he made in particular. I see that he is leaving the Chamber; he must be very afraid about what I am about to say about his contribution. He suggested that Labour Members do not think that antisocial behaviour is something to be treated seriously; he suggested that we think of it as a soft alternative to tackling crime. The reality is that Labour—as the Government's actions have demonstrated—sees both of them as part of the solution. We need to tackle crime and the causes of crime, and to tackle antisocial behaviour. In fact, it was the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis)—the lead Conservative Front-Bench spokesman on this subject—who described antisocial behaviour orders as gimmicks. We have got to remember where those who are prepared to tackle antisocial behaviour really are to be found in this House; actions speak louder than words.
	I was very impressed by the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh), and particularly by the inspiring stories that she told of people working from the bottom up on these issues. As we all recognise, it is the people whom we are here to represent, and it is the tools that the Government have put into their hands that are helping them to tackle such problems in their neighbourhoods. My hon. Friend gave some great examples in that regard.
	I do not want, in effect, to prolong the already lengthy comments of the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Browne) by commenting on the many points that he raised, but I should point out that we need a reality check. Forgive me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for raising the issue of crime—even though this is a debate about antisocial behaviour—as other Members have done. I want to draw Members' attention to yesterday's  Evening Standard, which highlighted London's crime figures. Between 2005 and 2006, there was a drop in every single area of crime except robbery. Homicide and violent crime are down, racist crime is down by 12 per cent., and homophobic crime is down by nearly 9 per cent. Gun-enabled and Operation Trident gun crime are both down by more than 14 per cent. The evidence shows what is really going on; the scaremongering is irresponsible.
	While we recognise that crime is a continuing problem that is never going to go away—we still have a lot to do in our constituencies, and the police and the Government have problems to tackle—we must not overplay the problem and argue that crime is so rampant that we are not seeing any progress. I pay testament to my own police force in Hackney, who have made great progress; I shall touch on that issue shortly.
	I have risen to speak on this issue because of its extreme importance to my constituents. We know that problems still exist, and I want to highlight some of the complex issues associated with antisocial behaviour. We have heard too much debate just about antisocial behaviour orders—I want to talk about some of the other issues, as well. I want to stress that in discussions about rights and individuals, we must not forget the rights of the community: the rights of the majority of decent folk, who just want to have a quiet life at home without having to deal with antisocial behaviour and crime. As I have mentioned, tackling crime is key, and it is only fair to highlight the progress made in my own borough. Between April and November last year, house-breaking declined by 39 per cent., to the lowest level since 1998. Muggings are down by 7 per cent., gun crime is down by 34 per cent. Overall, crime is down in the borough of Hackney by 15 per cent. Between April and November last year, 2,700 fewer crimes were committed. We must recognise the important work that has been done in that regard.
	The Government's aim has been to put antisocial behaviour on the national agenda. Until the Labour Government were elected in 1997, antisocial behaviour was something that people had to put up with. It was not mentioned, and people lived with it daily on their estates and streets; they had no tools to deal with it. I was a councillor during the 1990s, and I remember sitting in many a meeting with residents, and trying to bring together the different agencies, council officers, the police and other enforcement officers to tackle many of the day-to-day irritants of antisocial behaviour. We had some success, but—by gum!—it was a long and tortuous process. We could have done with some of these tools then.
	In 1997, a Government were elected who were committed to providing those tools. They have also introduced the excellent neighbourhood policing model, and I pay testament to the Mayor of London, who has progressed that model faster than in other parts of the country. We have seen a real difference. In Hackney, by and large, people know who their neighbourhood policing teams are. I regularly refer problems to those teams, and I usually find that they already know about them and are tackling them. We are therefore beginning to nip such problems in the bud.
	It is important to acknowledge, however, as others have done, that central Government cannot deal with this issue alone; such efforts should not be driven from the top down. I disagree with Opposition Members who suggest that there is a Whitehall-led policy on this issue. The Home Office and other Government Departments clearly have a very important role to play in setting the parameters, and it is also clear that we need laws and tools. However, the solutions are best determined locally. Progress is being made in the form of the forthcoming London Local Authorities Bill, which will put even more power in the hands of local authorities; that is a welcome step. Importantly, money is increasingly being devolved to local authorities, so that they can take such decisions.
	It was the Government who introduced the respect agenda a year ago, and antisocial behaviour and its causes are being tackled. I particularly welcome "Youth Matters", the youth opportunity card and the youth opportunities fund. All of us in Hackney will agree that we need to do more to ensure that young people have alternatives. I am not suggesting that all antisocial behaviour and crime is linked to young people, but there is an issue here, which I shall touch on a little later.
	Hackney council has recently been using more antisocial behaviour contracts, of ABCs, as they are frequently called. One of the issues that I wish to raise with Ministers is the cost of processing ASBOs. It costs thousands of pounds in court costs to process an ASBO. Hackney is trying to get partners to work together on that issue so that we can get money from different sources—landlords and other agencies—to fund it.
	Another issue in London that affects evaluating the efficiency of ASBOs is the problem of people crossing borough boundaries. Data are collected on a borough basis for the police and the councils, but London is one city and people move around. I know that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has announced a review of data collection in the Home Office and mentioned some of the problems with the quality of data collected. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will pass on to my right hon. Friend and his team the need to consider this issue in particular if we are to have a proper evaluation of the success of ASBOs and be able to tackle the problems that Hackney council tells me it faces on a daily basis.
	Another issue that I wish to raise relates to the role of landlords. I know that my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government recently announced an initiative to encourage registered social landlords and housing associations to play a more active role, but in Hackney—thanks to historic funding mechanisms—we have several estates with multiple landlords, sometimes six or even more, managing different parts of the estate, sometimes even different bits of the same block. That often leads to a buck-passing mentality and a lack of co-ordination. Nothing is ever anyone's responsibility, because it can always be blamed on someone else. For example, in the Lee Conservancy road area in Hackney Wick, it is difficult to get to the root of problems such as dumping of rubbish and car parking problems—we have not quite reached the state of parking rage, but there are many difficulties—and more serious matters.
	CCTV is also an issue on multi-landlord estates, and at a meeting in December, residents of the Holly Street estate, which nestles between Queensland and Kingsland roads in my constituency, repeated requests for the local registered social landlords to buy into a police-supported CCTV system. Councillors Emma Plouviez, Tom Price and Patrick Vernon have championed the issue, but the landlords seem to think that it is not their responsibility to buy into an effective, centrally controlled CCTV system on which the police and the council have worked together. It is time that we challenged those landlords.
	The National Housing Confederation recently launched its campaign "iN business for neighbourhoods", which was its way of saying that landlords had a bigger role than simply dealing with housing. We need to see landlords walk the walk as proof that they take the issue seriously.
	I have already mentioned some of the issues of CCTV and other parties, so I shall not repeat those points. However, the Liberal Democrats, represented eloquently today by the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Browne), are fond of talking about Big Brother. I prefer to talk about Big Sister, which involves support for the community and family, and keeping a watchful eye out for them. That is not a problem for me or for the people in my constituency. In fact, they would probably like to see more of it.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield rightly touched on some of the issues involving parenting in her detailed speech. We need to do more to tackle poor behaviour by young people. That is a challenge for those of us who are parents, whatever the age of our children. I pay tribute to our schools in Hackney, which I have often described in the Chamber before as "schools plus". They deal with a range of children, some from challenging backgrounds, who do not have stable family homes and whose parents do not—frankly speaking—take the responsibility that they should. I want to stress that the vast majority do, although some do not. Hackney schools have been very good at delivering parenting support. The Government as a whole could learn from the experience in Hackney.
	For example, Karen Glenister has been the head teacher at Burbage school in Hoxton for just over a year. Being keen to improve behaviour, she began to challenge pupils. One boy regularly misbehaved, and she made a series of telephone calls to his father to complain that the boy's behaviour was not acceptable. At first, the father railed against her, and said that she was not describing the child he knew. He did not believe what he was being told, and refused to take responsibility for his son's behaviour.
	Gradually, through grit and determination, she won the father around and persuaded him to go on a parenting course held in the school. At the end of the year, she wanted to reward everyone—pupils and others—connected with the school who had achieved something in the year. She asked the parents who had attended the course to go to the school for a certificate presentation.
	To her surprise, the father I am speaking about turned up booted and suited, and asked if he could make a little speech. In his emotional address, he talked with gratitude about the important impact that the lessons had had on him. He said that they had given him a different and better perception of his role as a father, and enabled him to have a better relationship with his son. That is the sort of day-to-day success that is being achieved in Hackney, and we need more of it.
	In Daubeney school in Homerton, a parenting centre has been set up with funding from a charitable trust. Its aim is to give parenting skills and support to people even before they have children. That is in addition to the Sure Start investment in Hackney, which has given the borough 14 children's centres.
	On Monday, I had the great pleasure of visiting the Ann Tayler children's centre in London Fields. I went with my hon. Friends the Minister for Pensions Reform and the Economic Secretary to the Treasury. We visited the newly refurbished and extended school building and saw the one-stop shop through which the fantastic new centre provides very welcome support for parents and the under-fives.
	I have some personal experience of these matters. I am a parent of children under five years old and have benefited from the sort of support that I am describing, which has helped me with all the little niggles associated with the difficult job of bringing up children. As I have said before, Sure Start should not be confined to the under-fives. It is also needed for children in primary and secondary schools, and for teenagers. To some extent, the respect agenda addresses that problem, but we need an even more joined-up approach across Government.
	I also want to congratulate Rev. Rose Hudson-Wilkin, a visionary vicar in the Queensbridge area of Hackney. She is not afraid to challenge parents to take their role responsibly and seriously. She speaks out where others fear to, and tells parents that they need to take responsibility and question their children about their activities, especially when they are in possession of new goods. Where do they get the money from? She is not afraid to encourage parents to ask such questions, and we need more people in leadership positions to do that.
	In Hackney, education activities are not limited to primary schools and Sure Start. The Hackney safer schools partnership is led by a police sergeant and a senior officer of Hackney's learning trust, which is the borough's education authority. The partnership is supported by an education worker based in the youth offending team, and is an example of good, joined-up local government. Recently, the partnership has linked with the safer neighbourhoods teams at ward level.
	The partnership provides educational programmes, and supports schools in responding to risk and identifying points of intervention. It also makes referrals to the local youth inclusion programmes. It plays an important role in Hackney by contributing to the development of routes out of gang involvement by which children are helped to relocate and find employment or training. The partnership has also introduced acceptable behaviour contracts in schools.
	We hope that in time there will be a seamless weave of such provision in Hackney, helping people at all stages of their lives. It is not Big Brother: it is Big Sister, and it is taking an interest in people's lives—at schools and on estates, through the police and CCTV, or in all sorts of other ways.
	I said that I wanted to speak about the problems with Hackney's Holly street estate. I visited it when it was being redeveloped in the early 1990s, and it was a dump. Crime and health problems were rife, but crime has massively reduced since the estate was rebuilt. However, just after the 2005 general election, there was a problem of serious drug dealing on the estate. The police mounted a major campaign, working with local landlords and the council, to tackle the problem. The issue was not only criminal—this may be where we disagree to some extent with the Opposition Front-Bench speakers: people associated with the drug dealing were congregating and there were no-go areas. They were not necessarily committing crimes, but by congregating they made residents worried and alarmed.
	The police operation was a great success. The police took their time; they did not rush things and residents patiently lived with the problems as the police moved in. The operation was successful not only because the police took action to imprison most of the 20 main ringleaders, but also because they brought in a dispersal order on the estate. It was so effective that no one realised it had been lifted. When I visited the estate with a Home Office Minister, people were not aware that the order had been lifted a month previously because the problems had gone. Obviously, when we live in a city we know that things will not always be perfect, but by and large the improvements have been massive.
	The point about Holly street that I particularly want to highlight to Ministers is the impact of low-level nuisance. Crime is identifiable and the police can make arrests. We have ways of tackling crime, although we can argue about their effectiveness, but small things that often go unreported have a significant effect on people's lives and force them to change their behaviour. There was someone who used to lurk every morning at a bus stop on Kingsland road in the Holly street estate, sometimes dealing drugs, but not always committing a crime, which meant that most residents walked to another bus stop so that they could get to work. The local newsagent opened later in the morning because he did not want to deal with people who were drugged up or drunk, which meant that commuters could not buy their newspaper. Parents were accompanying their children to and from the bus stop. Those little irritants, which are actually quite big in the day-to-day life of residents, do not register as reported crime.
	I urge the Metropolitan Police Service and the Home Office not necessarily to measure such things—we are always so keen to do that—but to acknowledge that although those annoyances are difficult to define, it is crucial to deal with them if we want peaceful, decent lives. I illustrate the benefit of dispersal orders with a quote from Vincent Stops. He is a councillor for Hackney central, which covers my constituency and straddles that of my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott). The dispersal order had a great effect on the Pembury estate and he said:
	"Of all the issues I have got involved in this generated the most interest...the turnout to a meeting was...over 150 people."
	He said that they were not the people who usually attended, but tenants from all backgrounds,
	"fed up with being harassed by small groups of youths—it was a genuine cry for help from those we don't normally hear from".
	He added that more youth work was needed, which, as I said, we recognise in Hackney. Those comments show that the measures were sorely needed, and we should be grateful for them.
	I have canvassed the opinions of local people and councillors. Common problems cover everything from vandalism, graffiti and rubbish to more serious things, which border on crime. The Government's announcement of more money for run-down estates is welcome. Happily, the vast majority of estates in Hackney are no longer run-down, thanks to the decent homes programme that my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield rightly highlighted as a significant measure.
	Perhaps the Government could follow Hackney's lead in terms of its estate improvement budget. Tenants have complete control of a small budget provided by Hackney Homes—formerly Hackney council—and can use it to improve physical facilities on their estate. That is residents' control, putting power in the hands of the people who know what they want.
	On decent homes, Sally Mulready, a councillor in Chatham ward said:
	"Above all else the Decent Homes programme will make a huge and eventually historic difference to the lives of people living on estates."
	In Hackney, we are seeing things that are beyond our widest dreams after years under Tory control.
	I want to touch briefly on drugs, though not to talk a lot about drug policy. I do not believe that we can talk about tackling antisocial behaviour—certainly in Hackney—without talking about drugs. Drugs are still a scourge on our streets. The police have a role in enforcement and arrest, but activity around drugs—taking in everything from gangs and low-level crime to drugged-up individuals—is the cause of many problems. We need to recognise that these daily irritants that change people's behaviour can be a problem. On the Holly Street estate, the victims were almost always effectively the wider community, so we need really joined-up government to deal with the problem.
	There is some evidence of the availability on Hackney's streets of a stronger form of cannabis known as "skunk". This stronger form of the drug is, according to anecdotal evidence from the police—we are still trying to work out ways of measuring it—more widely available and causing great problems. I am working with Anglican deans, councillors and residents in the local area to highlight the problem. We can talk endlessly about the classification and reclassification of cannabis and about big drug policy, but we need to recognise that drug policy is often behind what is actually happening on the streets. That is what people are living with now.

Kevan Jones: I am interested in what my hon. Friend is saying. In my constituency, as in hers, young people's lives are blighted by drugs. Does she agree with me that the one thing that we should not do is legalise some of these drugs, as the Liberal Democrats advocate?

Meg Hillier: I think it is fair to say that on this side of the House, we believe in joined-up government to tackle the problem, rather than the "joint up" government often proposed by some Opposition Members— [Laughter.] The seriousness of the problem with skunk is sadly demonstrated by the tragic murder only last year of a father of two on Evergreen square on the Holly street estate. Stevens Nyembo-Ya-Muteba of the Democratic Republic of the Congo went out one night, not particularly late, and said to the "children" sitting on the stairwell, "Will you please be quiet as I have to get up for work tomorrow?" For that "crime", he was stabbed and killed. He left a widow and two children to live with the consequences. That is one of the reasons why, in Hackney, we take the issue of drugs very seriously—it is not something to laugh about.
	In fairness to other Members, I will not go in great detail into other antisocial behaviour issues, but I need to touch on them. Hackney has seen a ban on street drinking in some areas, which has had a great effect and reclaimed the streets for ordinary decent folk. The power given under the Licensing Act 2003 to local authorities—rather than distant magistrates living a long way from the area—to take decisions about what happens in their areas is another important issue. I pay tribute to Councillor Christine Boyd, who led very effectively on licensing issues.
	We have seen a creative partnership with a local hospital develop in Hoxton. An ambulance is now stationed in Hoxton—an area with a large number of bars and effectively the saturation zone in Hackney. It picks up people who are very drunk, dealing with them there, rather than clogging up accident and emergency. There are many problems connected with alcohol abuse, but we do not have enough time to go into them all today. Alcohol certainly causes many problems in Hackney, but at least the partnership I just mentioned goes some way to tackling some of them.
	I welcome the Gambling Act 2005, which comes into force some time later this year. It will allow local authorities to have a say about betting shops in their area. Much to residents' and the council's dismay, an application for a third betting shop in Chatsworth road in the Homerton area of Hackney was recently made. The problem cannot be dealt with under current law, but thanks to the Government's introduction of a change in the law under the Gambling Act 2005, local authorities will be able to tackle it. They can make a judgment, as they know what works best for their area.
	Noisy neighbours are still a problem and even though Hackney has an effective noise patrol more work needs to be done. I raised the matter with my Front-Bench colleagues with particular respect to ASBOs. Perhaps we could use them more effectively around noise nuisance.
	Another issue is that although the Home Office often talks tough, we should look more to mediation. In a dense, inner-city area such as mine, talking to people can sometimes be one of the solutions. We were elected as Members of Parliament because people voted for us and we need to put that community first. We need to be on the side of those suffering from antisocial behaviour. The Labour Government have a good track record. I have highlighted some of the issues that I would like to see changed and improved, but we can be proud of what we have begun. I hope that it is just the beginning and that we have more to see.

Iain Wright: I thank the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) for giving us thoughtful, considered and non-partisan insights into his views about antisocial behaviour.
	I am grateful that the House has the opportunity to discuss the extremely serious issue of antisocial behaviour. With the possible exception of social housing, it is the subject about which constituents most come to see me at my weekly surgeries.
	I warmly thank the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Browne). I have had a bad day, and he gave me a real laugh. He cheered me up. His comments confirm that Liberal Democrat antisocial behaviour policy is ill-considered, ill-thought through and hilarious. However, there is a serious side to this. My constituents are affected by antisocial behaviour, and the hon. Gentleman offered no meaningful solutions for tackling it. I hope that at the elections constituents throughout the country will remember that.
	Far too many individuals and communities in Hartlepool, as in other places, have their quality of life affected by nuisance neighbours, problem families, yobbish behaviour, drinking in the street, and gangs of youths intimidating decent people—not only older citizens, but making other young people feel threatened as well. Reduction of crime has been a great success over recent years in Hartlepool, with examples of true partnership working to achieve significant results.
	By coincidence, I had an e-mail this morning about crime figures in Hartlepool from the district commander of Hartlepool basic command unit, Steve Ashman. I will quote what Steve said in his e-mail.
	"December saw an outstanding performance in terms of both crime reduction and our detection rate. The district has never before returned less than 800 crimes in a month, going back to when crime records began. I have often thought that to get under 800 would be possible but difficult. We came in with 736, which has smashed all previous records."
	Given that December is traditionally a high point for crime, with more people being drunk because of Christmas and new year, and more burglaries because of Christmas presents, that shows a remarkable achievement. I pay tribute to Steve and all his staff in Cleveland police for their work in helping to reduce crime in the town.
	The success in crime reduction is not mirrored in attempts to deal with antisocial behaviour, which have faltered in recent years. There has been a belief in some organisations in Hartlepool that antisocial behaviour was difficult to define and so difficult to address. I was concerned that that followed the principle of "It's too hard so we won't try", which is of no use to my constituents.
	In June last year I was fortunate enough to secure an Adjournment debate on the subject of antisocial behaviour in Hartlepool. In that debate I expressed my frustration that agencies, particularly the local council, were not being as proactive in both prevention and enforcement as agencies in other areas. The tools provided by the Government to tackle antisocial behaviour, such as ASBOs and acceptable behaviour contracts, were not being used as much as I or, more importantly, residents believed they should be. Hartlepool had seen 10 ASBOs issued in a six-year period, well behind neighbouring authorities such as Middlesbrough and Stockton-on-Tees.
	In that debate I quoted letters and e-mails which expressed constituents' concerns about, for example, loud music being played at 3 am, antisocial tenants being evicted only to turn up again in a different house in the same street, and gangs fighting in front of frightened residents. One of the e-mails from a constituent concluded:
	"It seems to us that a number of agencies have powers to deal with a lot of issues but do not use the powers and many appear not to talk to each other."
	Among decent residents there was a growing loss of faith in the ability of agencies to tackle the problem.
	I find that suffering from antisocial behaviour is not confined to a particular area or a particular class of people. I receive many complaints from people in the most prosperous part of my town about underage drinking in Ward Jackson park. Youths congregate, causing disturbance and intimidation. They move around frequently in order to trick the police, but tend to be in the affluent areas of Seaton Carew, the Fens estate and the picturesque village of Greatham.
	Having said that, it is fair to say that people living in the most deprived areas of Hartlepool are disproportionately more likely to suffer from instances of criminal and antisocial behaviour than other areas. The wards of Stranton, Grange and Dyke House are filled with energetic and committed people who are actively engaged with making their communities better—people such as Julie Hetherington, Brian Maiden, Brian McBean, Muriel Boreland and Irene Nelson. Why should those people and their neighbours have to suffer from blatant and open drug dealing in the street, litter, graffiti, and problem families, as well as the prospect of going to work and having to walk past people drinking in the street and not bothering to seek employment? Many of the Victorian terraced properties in areas in the centre of town have been sold to private landlords who do not care about the neighbourhood, who often do not even know where Hartlepool is, and are not that bothered as long as the housing benefit cheques keep coming in.
	I am pleased that some progress has been made in Hartlepool in the six months since my debate. I am also pleased that the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Coaker), who responded to the debate in June, is on the Front Bench. I pay tribute to the work that he did after the debate. He put a rocket under the backsides of some people in Hartlepool, which has made a real difference. There is a growing recognition among certain elements in the local authority that enforcement need not necessarily be a negative or an exclusive policy that is completely contrary to prevention and rehabilitation, but can and should be undertaken with a whole range of other appropriate approaches towards tackling the problem.
	Hartlepool was the pilot basic command unit in the Cleveland police area for neighbourhood policing. The local strategic partnership, which I chair, in conjunction with the Home Office, pledged £250,000 to that project to ensure that policing was as close to communities as possible. An additional 74 police officers have been recruited—we have 21 new officers in total—or redeployed from back-office duties to ensure that the fight against crime and antisocial behaviour is led from the streets. Since April last year, there has been a local police team in each ward in the town, with leaflets distributed showing the photos of the police officers together with their contact numbers, and surgeries have allowed members of the public to discuss matters of concern directly with them. That has had an unbelievable impact on the sense of community safety for most of the town. The visible police presence on the streets of Hartlepool has led to a palpable sense of decent people reclaiming their areas.
	In September, I was asked by community groups from Stranton, Grange and Dyke House to chair a meeting between residents and senior agency staff in organisations such as the police and the local authority to discuss the problems of drug dealing and to ensure that measures such as CCTV provision are operational and co-ordinated. A follow-up meeting in November showed that the closer working and, crucially, the level of discussion and debate between residents and police on matters such as the best approach to tackling suspected drug dealing—whether we kick the door in or take more covert approaches—has helped to increase faith and reassurance and ensured that residents are part of the process of reducing criminal and antisocial behaviour.
	In addition, to tackle the problems of absent and uncaring private landlords, the local authority is in the final stages of considering the introduction of a selective licensing scheme—under powers introduced by this Government—which would mean that landlords in the town would have to show that they have in place suitable arrangements to deal with antisocial tenants.
	Perhaps most encouragingly for residents, local agencies are working with much greater focus and energy to put in place enforcement actions. At the time of my Adjournment debate six months ago, 10 antisocial behaviour orders had been issued in six or seven years; I understand that that figure has increased to about 30. The principle of naming and shaming young people who have been issued with ASBOs is making its first tentative steps in Hartlepool. Last month, 2,000 leaflets were distributed on the Dyke House estate regarding a three-year ASBO, informing residents that the individual concerned had been making threats of violence, had been verbally abusive, and had harassed residents, damaged property and thrown missiles. That is welcome. I have wanted that initiative to be introduced for some time to provide reassurance to residents blighted by the thoughtless actions of a small number of individuals and to make the individuals concerned accountable for their actions. I hope that there will be more instances of such publicity.
	Despite the undoubted improvements in the past few months, there is a need to do much more and to adopt a more co-ordinated approach in Hartlepool. One of the reasons why local agencies have been slow off the mark in using the extra powers that the Government provided was a feeling among some officials that a move towards enforcement was somehow contrary to attempts to rehabilitate and to prevent antisocial behaviour. I have observed a significant difference in approach and style between those involved in enforcement and those who work in prevention. I hope that those differences are ending, and that a more consistent approach, which can embrace prevention and enforcement as fundamental parts of a co-ordinated antisocial behaviour strategy, is coming to the fore.
	The town could do much more to introduce early intervention to prevent the onset of antisocial and criminal behaviour. As other hon. Members have said, early intervention is crucial because signs of delinquent behaviour in children are one of the strongest indicators of future activity. It also allows those individuals to overcome barriers and fulfil their potential. Studies show that some factors, such as poverty, dependence on benefits, parents' history of convictions and imprisonment, and the youthfulness of parents, are most closely associated with predicting a child's behaviour in later life.
	A study in this country, which the National Audit Office report cites, shows that 63 per cent. of boys with convicted fathers were subsequently convicted themselves. The report concluded:
	"Having a convicted parent at age 10 was the best single predictor of anti-social personality at age 32."
	That rings true in my experience as a ward councillor on Hartlepool borough council and as a Member of Parliament.

Annette Brooke: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Would he be surprised to learn that a recent answer to a parliamentary question that I tabled revealed that only 3 per cent. of local authorities mentioned the children of prisoners in children and young people's plans? Does he agree that it is important to identify early those children who might be at risk of committing crimes later?

Iain Wright: I agree. As soon as the debate finishes, I shall rush to the Hartlepool children and young person's plan to ascertain which factors it takes into account—whether it includes not only children who have convicted parents but the range of risk factors that I mentioned—as methods of trying to predict and prevent antisocial behaviour.
	It is important to stress that I do not suggest that everybody in the categories that I outlined is condemned to a life of crime and should be accordingly stigmatised. However, risk factors can be used to target and tailor more efficiently early intervention mechanisms that have greater chances of success. That approach would complement the Government's attempts to reduce social exclusion and improve chances in the most deprived areas.
	The Government's emphasis on education, the doubling of spend per pupil in Hartlepool, the provision of neighbourhood renewal fund money and the establishment of Sure Start centres all demonstrate that early intervention can make a positive impact. However, we could do more in a more co-ordinated and targeted way. For example, I should like an extension of education maintenance allowances to include graduation incentives, which would encourage young people in deprived areas, who hitherto had not even considered further and higher education, to do so. I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary can expand on whether that is planned.
	I am interested in hon. Members' comments about neighbourhood policing, which is the 21st-century equivalent of the bobby on the beat. For a variety of reasons, that informal supervision is absent. My hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) mentioned community wardens. We have them in Hartlepool, where they have proved a huge success. People say that, 20 or 30 years ago, the bus conductor or the park warden could say, "Oi Johnny, oi Mary, don't do that", and prevent things from escalating. There is a consensus that neighbourhood policing works. We need to consider other mechanisms and ensure that the 21st-century equivalent of the park warden or bus conductor is in society, not only to make areas safer but to prevent antisocial behaviour at an early stage.
	The borough of Hartlepool is relatively compact, and organisations such as the borough council, the primary care trust, the basic command unit that I mentioned earlier and the registered social landlords are all coterminous. They can and do work together effectively. The sharing of information takes place, but I would be keen to see whether the Government can facilitate even more data sharing.
	I would also like to see a much greater expansion of restorative justice. I have already called in the House for community justice centres in my constituency, like those in Liverpool and Salford. I was disappointed that we were not included in the latest batch, but I will keep fighting for them. Hartlepool would be an ideal location for such centres because of the well developed residents' network and the sense of civic pride that my town has. That civic pride, which encourages a feeling of positive engagement on the ground in neighbourhoods, needs to be encouraged still further.
	I will also continue to push for more powers to be given to residents' groups, because I can see the potential for such powers in Hartlepool. Neighbourhood renewal money has given community groups in my constituency hundreds of thousands of pounds to improve amenities, by providing better street lighting and helping to keep neighbourhoods cleaner, for example. More could definitely be achieved if the Government gave residents associations more powers to take ownership and control of their area, and I would like the Minister to address that point when he winds up the debate.
	We should not shy away from enforcement as an effective tool to tackle antisocial behaviour. Early intervention and initiatives to break the negative cycle should be emphasised, but inevitably there comes a point when enforcement is necessary. The Government need to continue in the same direction and encourage magistrates to pass tougher sentences. I pay tribute to what my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley said about magistrates being soft. We need to tackle that issue, possibly by naming and shaming those who do not impose harsh sentences.
	I mentioned earlier the 17-year-old youth in Hartlepool who had a three-year ASBO placed on him. He has been locked up 60 times. That is unacceptable. We should ensure that any sentence passed, whether a prison or a community sentence, is served effectively. If a community order is served requiring litter in an area to be cleaned up for a week, we should not pat Johnny or Mary on the back if they turn up only once or twice. The litter needs to be cleaned up, and if that is not done in the time provided, those people need to be sent back until it is done. That not only provides discipline but gives reassurance to the local community.

Robert Goodwill: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Wright). My mother's family hail from west Hartlepool and I have happy memories of visiting the town and being on the beach at Seaton Carew.
	As children, when we were not visiting the beach at Hartlepool, we would often visit the Yorkshire coast. From that experience, I know that antisocial behaviour is nothing new. Travelling down the A64 in our Standard Ensign, we would often come to Staxton roundabout, and be faced with the decision of turning left for Scarborough or right for Filey. If it was Easter, and the mods and rockers were in town, we would often decide to turn right, as the antisocial behaviour on the beach on such occasions was something to be believed. That paled into insignificance, however, when compared with Glasgow holiday week in August, when most of Glasgow closed down, factories closed down, whole streets decamped to Scarborough and the hard drinking of the men was something to be experienced.
	The current problem with antisocial behaviour is much more ubiquitous and in many ways more complex. First, access and attitudes to alcohol are very different now, and drinking hours are much longer. In my constituency, people can drink until 5 or 6 o'clock in the morning in nightclubs or at the new casino. Many tourists who visit the town now adopt Spanish hours, as I call them, going to sleep in the early evening only to get up so that they can club all night. Young people also have much more money in their pockets than they used to have. Many people, before they even go out for the night, will tank up on vodka in their guest house or at home. Alcopops have made alcohol a much more attractive option for younger people. Even if one cannot fight one's way to the bar in a particular establishment, waitresses, almost like those girls who sell ice cream in the cinema, go around with trays of shots. One can throw £1 into the tray and quickly knock back a vodka shot between rounds.
	The other big change since the 1960s is that decent people go out more in the evenings. We have moved on a lot from the early days of chicken in a basket. More people now enjoy having meals in restaurants and spending time in our city centres, to which, previously, people largely went to drink in pubs, not to eat. People who go out for a good time, perhaps to binge-drink, are therefore intermixing with families and more respectable—if I can use that word—people who do not regard that as a good prospect.
	Towns such as Scarborough depend heavily on tourism; it is, I am told, the UK's premier tourist resort. We are trying to attract more families and conferences to the town, which we cannot do if we have this image of binge-drinking on our streets. We do not want undesirable people coming to the town. We do, however, have the UK Independence party conference coming to Scarborough in October—[Hon. Members: "Are you tempted?"] On that occasion, I will be in Blackpool, to which the Conservative party is not too posh to go.
	Forty-six per cent. of calls to North Yorkshire police are about criminal damage. I know, however, that Scarborough is not as bad as many of our inner-city areas. We heard from the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh), who is not in her place, about the number of ASBOs served in her constituency. Last year, our newly appointed local police chief, chief inspector Andy Everitt, identified his top priorities: targeting the top five antisocial offenders; more ASBOs; the use of alcohol-free zones and, possibly, parenting orders.
	Scarborough is a low-crime area. From speaking to my local authority today, I understand that only 25 incidents get phoned in for the whole borough, which pales into insignificance when compared with many London and inner city boroughs in the north of England. However, one in four crimes take place in either the town centre or Castle ward, and our crime and disorder reduction partnership is working well. Our Conservative-controlled local authority is well ahead of the game—I am pleased that places such as Hartlepool are catching up—which might be related to the fact that the leader of that council is a former chief of police in Scarborough.
	The attitude taken in Scarborough is that ASBOs are not the way to go. The point at which an ASBO is issued to an offender is probably too late. We should be getting ahead of the game. Only two ASBOs were issued in Scarborough last year. We feel that the way forward is through other measures. As well as ASBOs, for which residents, the council or landlords can apply through the civil courts, we have CRASBOs—criminal ASBOs—five of which have been issued. I do not know for sure, but I suspect that those five offenders are the five referred to by Chief Inspector Everitt when he took up his post. CRASBOs are much cheaper to secure, because they result from criminal prosecutions. As we have already heard today, issuing an ASBO can cost up to £3,500, and in cases in which ASBOs are contested it can cost many times more than that.
	We have 14 acceptable behaviour agreements in the borough, three acceptable behaviour contracts and five active dispersal areas. We have a designated public places order, which applies to 150 streets. Amid the plethora of street furniture in Scarborough are distinctive lime-green signs—I think I used the word "funky" when they were introduced—drawing attention to the areas involved. Contrary to popular opinion in the town, they are not areas where people are prohibited from drinking, but if the police ask someone to hand over the alcohol that they are drinking, that person can be arrested and fined £500 if they refuse to do so. Those arrangements replace byelaws which had no powers behind them. If people chose to ignore them, there was nothing that the local authority could do.
	Scarborough has a successful crime and disorder reduction partnership, known as the Safer Communities Partnership (North Yorkshire Moors and Coast). There have been many successes, for instance in regard to problem drinking. There are four planks to that strategy. The first plank is responsible retailing. We have the Best Bar None campaign, which gives pubs and off licences accreditation if they can meet the required standards by identifying people who are drunk and refusing to serve them, and being vigilant about the problem of under-age drinking. The second plank is responsible drinking. Attitudes to binge drinking need to be changed. We distribute Spikeys, special caps for bottles to prevent people from putting spirits or date-rape drugs into them. We are also examining the problem of domestic violence linked to irresponsible drinking. The third plank is enforcement and fixed-penalty notices, and the fourth relates to the urban environment.
	Lighting is important in the urban environment. If people are to feel confident in our town centres, the lighting must be adequate. Conversely, one reason why we do not see too much antisocial behaviour in the villages is that there is no lighting. Young people do not congregate in the village centres because in winter it is pitch black, and no one can see what they are doing. We are also considering the location of takeaways and taxi ranks, where there can be flashpoints of antisocial behaviour as people congregate after leaving the pubs. We have a very good CCTV system in the town.
	Led by the local authority, we have been giving thought to what it calls inter-generational activity. Elderly people, perhaps retuning home from a meal in a restaurant, are intimidated by young people in the streets at night. Although the young people may not be doing anything illegal or causing a specific problem, the fact that they are there, sometimes wearing hoodies, may make elderly people less than keen to rush across and hug them straight away. The local authority is organising another "kids versus cronies" bowling competition this year, following last year's successful roll-out. I am only sorry that, not being in either group, I shall not be able to take part in it just yet.

Shona McIsaac: It is a pleasure to take part in the debate, and I want to echo some of the comments of the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Goodwill). As I represent Cleethorpes, a number of the issues he referred to are also of relevance to my constituency. On Friday and Saturday nights, lots of people congregate in Cleethorpes town centre and there is concern about the drinking culture there and its impact in terms of antisocial behaviour.
	I am also pleased that the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Browne) has returned to the Chamber, because as I am one of the two Members present who served on the Committee of the Anti-social Behaviour Bill—as it was called before it was enacted—I can tell him that his colleagues who served on that Committee came up with some pretty strange and wacky proposals. I certainly recall their negative comments on police community support officers, dispersal zones and many other measures in the Bill.
	As I served on the Committee, I know about the measures under discussion and the powers of the police and local councils—

Annette Brooke: The impact of antisocial behaviour on communities and individuals cannot be overestimated, and it must be tackled effectively. The Minister for Policing, Security and Community Safety opened this debate by saying that we should adopt a reflective approach, and I welcome that. The debate is about striking the balance between preventive and putative measures—between support and action. I have agreed with a lot of what has been said by the many hon. Members who have commented on that balance.
	One form of preventive action is the Sure Start scheme, which many Members have mentioned today and about which I have spoken on many occasions, because the Government are to be congratulated on it. However, it will take time for the effects of the first Sure Start programmes to work through and, because the schemes are confined to the most deprived wards, many families who live just outside those areas may not yet have been included.
	Preventive strategies are essential. A report submitted to the Public Accounts Committee made it clear that there is much more scope for preventive action, as Liberal Democrats point out in every debate on antisocial behaviour. Such action is important. I would like more work to be done through our children's services and children's trusts to identify children who may be at risk, so that suitable measures can be adopted as soon as possible.
	Before I was elected I was knocking on doors in one of the villages in my Dorset constituency and I was surprised that in household after household people told me that there were terrible antisocial behaviour problems. Eventually, an ASBO was imposed on one young man—in fact, it was the first ASBO that Purbeck district council, in conjunction with Dorset police, had managed to secure. However, although that ASBO was absolutely necessary, it was only necessary because there had been no earlier interventions. The village no longer had a community beat officer and many other things were lacking. I accept that there are occasions when ASBOs are needed as a stop measure to protect the community, but we should focus on the whole toolkit, as we have said many times, starting with warnings, which are cost-effective, as the National Audit Office report tells us.
	I am particularly interested in acceptable behaviour contracts. There is often a competition about which authority has issued the greatest number of ASBOs, which is silly. As the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby said, ASBOs are sometimes used when other measures have not even been tried. The NAO report refers to Labour-controlled Hackney council, which has made enormous use of acceptable behaviour contracts—effectively, I assume, because the proportion of ASBOs is smaller. I am proud that acceptable behaviour contracts were pioneered in Islington.
	I want to talk about the impact of ASBOs on young people. As the debate has shown, we are sometimes in danger of equating all young people with yobs. That is sad, because the majority of our young people are excellent and will grow up to become good citizens. There is a danger of stigmatising and of targeting antisocial behaviour measures on the young; much of the data shows various interventions in respect of under-18-year-olds. At a sitting of the PAC, someone put a good question to a Home Office civil servant. They asked whether it would be possible to have a breakdown of the figures for antisocial behaviour, because there is a big difference between a 17-year-old and 10 or 12-year-olds. Further breakdown of the statistics would be helpful for monitoring and evaluation.
	One of my particular concerns is vulnerable young people—not because I am soft about antisocial behaviour, but because I am genuinely concerned about the unintended consequences of measures. That is why effective scrutiny in Committee is so important; far too much legislation has unintended consequences. I hope the Minister will reflect on and respond to the following point, which I raised at the PAC without receiving a satisfactory answer. The British Institute for Brain Injured Children conducted a survey of youth offending teams and antisocial behaviour co-ordinators between April 2004 and April 2005. It reported that 35 per cent. of children made subject to ASBOs had a mental health problem or recognised learning disability. It found that 3 per cent. had autism or Asperger's syndrome, while 42 per cent. had attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.
	I am really concerned that children and young people who may have complex conditions are getting caught up in the action against antisocial behaviour. Clearly, other measures could be used more appropriately in those particular circumstances. It is easy to say that the evidence is just anecdotal, but there is rather a lot of it, so I would ask the Minister to take the matter away and check out the evaluation and monitoring. Surely it is not a sign of a civilised society to impose punitive measures or conditions on a child with Asperger's who may be quite unable to meet those conditions. Surely it is a strength to recognise that individual cases may need to be treated rather differently. In those circumstances, we need a proper assessment from children's services so that children at risk are protected rather than wrongly given an ASBO. There should really be a legal requirement—I have proposed amendments in various Committees in this respect—for any order against a child to be preceded by a children's service assessment.
	I welcome the introduction of individual support orders, but I would like to point out a time lag. ASBOs were introduced in 1998 and all along the Liberal Democrats said that supportive measures should be in place. It is no good just having stop measures, because if we are to make real progress, we need to change people's behaviour. We had to wait until 2004 before individual support orders were introduced. As Liberal Democrats, we question the priorities and the balance that the Government have implemented. We welcome the introduction of ISOs, but we do not welcome the fact that only 1 per cent. of ASBOs on children presently appear to have support orders attached.
	It would be good to hear the Minister's reassurance that more work will be done on encouragement and education. I think that the Youth Justice Board report made the point that the majority of sentencers appeared to be unaware of the support orders. It also noted that out of the £500,000 of ring-fenced funding made available in 2005—I congratulate the Government on making it available—only £62,000 was applied for by youth offending teams to provide the input necessary for individual support orders. It is important to build on this and ensure that young people with ASBOs have a support package wrapped around them.
	I would like to comment on breaches. Acceptable behaviour contracts are discussed in the audit report and there is a lot about young people not understanding the conditions. Clearly, we need to work on that aspect, as full communication and understanding are necessary. We have to make these measures work better. In respect of breaches of ASBOs, there are questions about whether all the conditions are reasonable, so a full input from the local youth offending is necessary to ensure that they are reasonable. A young person has to have some interaction with others.
	I believe that an individual support order can have conditions attached to it and that a breach can also happen there. It is a matter for a bit more concern, as the support order is surely supposed to be supportive and it does not seem terribly helpful if someone ends up with a criminal record. I realise that we are back to the carrot and stick, but it remains a bit of a problem.
	Some people have mentioned naming and shaming and they have seen it in a positive light. I understand some of the arguments that are put forward. However, I am concerned about the naming and shaming of the vulnerable children that I have mentioned, and the potential consequences. My attention has been drawn to the guidance that is issued by the Home Office and I have read through it. Is the Minister sure that it goes sufficiently far? It requires factual information. I am not sure that it has the full common assessment that we need.
	Parenting measures have been mentioned by many previous speakers. I questioned parental orders during the Committee stage of the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 —[ Interruption. ] I did indeed. I did not vote against them, but I questioned them, because that is my role as an MP: to question in Committee. I could not see how we could make people do what they did not want to do. Being a former teacher, I made the point that, if one tries to make kids do something that they do not want to do, they sit there with folded arms and do not participate. However, parental orders have apparently been successful and I have said on many occasions that I am pleased that that is so. There are parents who have said, "I wish I'd had parent classes a long time ago." I am prepared to admit when I have questioned something—it was right to question it at the time—which evidence later shows to be useful.

Lindsay Hoyle: It is great that so many people have joined in the debate. That shows how much store people put by the fact that antisocial behaviour is a big problem in constituencies. I have to agree with that. Where do we start in a debate about antisocial behaviour? The issue is about getting funding across in certain areas. Home-Start in Chorley is a good group that gives families support when they need it. The problem is that we could lose Home-Start in Chorley because of a lack of funding. We need to try to find new funds to ensure that we do not lose such schemes; otherwise we will pay the price somewhere down the line through antisocial behaviour.
	Where do we go from there? Other groups are important, too. We must try to challenge antisocial behaviour, so I am pleased that we can do that through ASBOs. ASBOs are successful, but they are good only if strong magistrates are willing to back them up and if the court is willing to push through the problem people who will not respect the terms of their ASBOs. If that does not happen and the court is weak, police and the victims feel let down, although that might be due to not the magistrate, but the advice of a clerk that the matter should not be pursued, or that the person should be given another chance. Unfortunately, victims do not understand that. We have to put victims first, and the sooner we start doing that, the better.
	I am pleased to say that the number of police has gone up in Lancashire—may it continue to increase. A uniformed presence on the streets can make a real difference to fighting crime. The police community support officers back that presence up and operate with the beat manager to play an important role. The PCSOs are as effective as anyone I know. They can rightly call on the local council, and council wardens have a role to play with PCSOs because by working together, they can fight antisocial behaviour. They are committed to making our streets safer. We must not shy away from keeping a uniformed presence on the street.
	When people break their ASBOs and continue to be a problem, we must deal with that. An effective way of doing so would be to change the rules for court sentences. The sentences give should be not maximum sentences, but minimum sentences, so that victims will know the exact time that people will serve. At present, someone who gets a maximum sentence might serve only 50 per cent. of it, with good behaviour. If minimum sentences were given, victims would understand exactly how people were being punished. If those people misbehaved in prison, the sentence would be extended. A minimum sentence is important to victims, and we must continue to ensure that victims' voices are heard and that they are first in the justice system. I am pleased that we are getting that message across.
	We must give alternatives. Young people need support, but when the council tax comes round, we always see a cut in the youth budget. That is always one of the first cuts to take place, yet we wonder why there is no funding for alternatives for young people. Our area does not have the pleasure of having a unitary authority; we have a two-tier system and are reliant on the county council. However, when the county council sets its budget, Chorley gets a poor settlement for youth provision, which leads to a cut in its youth service and problems on the street. We must change that and realise that the youth budget is important because it funds some of the ways of tackling antisocial behaviour. We must make it a priority that councils understand that they have a part to play. We need preventive measures—not just a stick, but a carrot as well.
	I am pleased that there are people such as Tom Watson, who looks after Tatton community centre in Chorley. He has ensured that the community centre is available for all people in the area. The youth service on a Monday is provided by volunteers, so the people who live in that area are putting the youth club on and making a difference.
	We need to join everything up. Neighbourhood watch is not about people twitching behind curtains and trying to be nosey. People involved in neighbourhood watch are trying to make their communities safer. Tom Watson has worked well with Keith Warren, who looks after the Lancashire neighbourhood watch and has been advising the Government on best practice and the way in which neighbourhood watch can work with authorities to bring about safer streets in Lancashire. I am pleased that those people are on board.
	I am pleased, too, that the Government have ensured that closed circuit television has a role to play in Chorley. I am pleased that there is a safer car park scheme, so that when people go to their cars and see youngsters hanging around under the floodlights, they understand that there is some protection, and that there is someone looking after them. We need to join up all those measures. I would like CCTV to be rolled out to all the rural villages in Chorley, as that would make the villagers safer. We have a big role to play in making our streets and communities much stronger and safer for all of us. I am sure that the Minister takes his job seriously, and I know that he cares passionately about ensuring that people are safe on the streets. We must fight antisocial behaviour, and we can do so by working together.
	There is a responsibility on off-licences, too. They are the cause of a lot of antisocial behaviour, because they provide the drink that fuels it. Usually, it is not youngsters who go into the off-licence, but someone over 18, who buys the drink to pass on or sell to youngsters. They then go to the recreation ground, have far too much to drink and cause vandalism, using spray-paint cans to spray their names everywhere. That behaviour has an effect on people's lives, and it is a misery for people who have to put up with it, night after night. We must try to ensure that off-licences are policed, and that can only be done by bringing all the organisations together. We must be firm with anybody who breaks the code on selling alcohol.
	Of course, after alcohol, there is usually a next step: drugs. People start off with cannabis and go on to harder drugs. I do not care what people say—there is a definite link between soft drugs and hard drugs. We must be tough and reclassify cannabis. There has been a trial, and the results show the consequence of being soft on cannabis. Whatever people might say, it is a dangerous drug with long-term health effects, and we need to tell people that it is dangerous. It is time to re-categorise it, because drugs are a blight on young people, and a major part of antisocial behaviour. Drugs and drink fuel young people in a way that causes misery, not just for the young person, but for the family that they go home to and the families that live in the neighbourhood. Drugs are a real challenge. We have to be tough on the dealers, and we must make sure that the sentence fits the crime. Dealers should be put away for a long time, so that they are not allowed back on to the streets to deal again. We must make sure that there is lifelong protection for the people who live in the areas that are affected. Of course, we must make our voice heard.

Tobias Ellwood: I thank the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) for an excellent speech, and I share a number of his views, including his concerns about antisocial behaviour orders, the need to focus on victims, and his passion about the problems of drugs. He spoke with authority, passion and commitment about his constituency, and for that he should be congratulated. It is interesting that we have had such a fantastic debate. As we are coming to the end of it, it would be useful if I mopped up and responded to some of the views expressed. We had an interesting debate last week on social exclusion, and there is an overlap between the two subjects.
	The definition of antisocial behaviour is a good place to start. The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 describes it as behaviour
	"likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to one or more persons not of the same household as himself".
	To put it another way, it is a line that is breached when expressing public emotion, either in celebration or in anger. To understand the causes of antisocial behaviour is to understand the limits of opportunities in our society, the shortfalls of Government policy, and the decline in moral and social values.
	Hardly a day goes by without our hearing about an incident on a train, in a town centre or a residential area in which people were disturbed by antisocial behaviour such as a fight, a tussle, someone letting off fireworks and so on. We live in a complex, interdependent, integrated social community, whose excesses and imbalances are enthusiastically exposed by the media, so differences in opinion and jealousy invariably arise. It is the Government's responsibility to ensure that any resulting antisocial behaviour is dealt with correctly, whether by tackling it long before a situation develops, by limiting the conditioning of the aggressor, who comes to realise that they are out of order, or by allowing the police to deal with the problem.
	There has been a flurry of activity since the Government came to office. More than 30 criminal justice Acts have been introduced since 1997 including, most notably, the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. ASBOs were introduced in 1999, and the Antisocial Behaviour Act was passed in 2003. Recently, in January 2006, the respect action plan, which has been mentioned, was introduced, and last June, the national respect squad was formed. Last month, on 27 December, the respect tsar announced that 40 areas would be designated as respect zones and receive extra cash. There has been a huge number of initiatives but, as we heard from my hon. and good Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert), the Government are failing, which is reflected in the huge sum—some £3.4 billion—that antisocial behaviour costs every year.
	The 2005-06 British crime survey showed that the number of kids hanging about on street corners has risen, as has the number of people getting drunk and engaging in rowdy behaviour. Complaints about noisy neighbours, too, have increased. The Government's response to antisocial behaviour is largely reactive, as hon. Members have said, not preventive. The National Audit Office says that about 50 per cent. of ASBOs are breached. The ASBO is regarded as a badge of honour and, because of the pressures on the police, its conditions are not enforced. The police play a pivotal role, and I take my hat off to the Dorset constabulary, which is one of the best performing in the country but, unfortunately, one of the worst funded. It looks after Bournemouth town centre and keeps it relatively safe, but about half the police on duty on a Friday or Saturday night look after an area about half a mile square, so the rest of Bournemouth does not receive the coverage that residents expect their taxes to provide.
	Much has been said about the role of police community support officers. I hesitated to welcome their introduction, as it appeared to be a case of policing on the cheap. CSOs have a role to play but, unfortunately, they have limited powers, so the role of special constables should be bolstered. I come from an Army background— [ Interruption. ] I urge the Minister to bear with me, because I very much value the role of the Territorial Army in helping the regular Army when required to do so. In Bournemouth, people do not sign up to become police specials, because there is no money involved. Instead, they sign up to become CSOs, whose salary almost equates to that received by a full police officer. CSOs' training does not approach the training given to specials, and neither are their powers of arrest comparable. I urge the Minister to shift the emphasis so that specials are paid a sum comparable to that received by members of the TA who work with the regular Army.
	Last year, a bizarre formula change meant that nightclubs and tourism destinations were reclassified in the funding package that determines police manning levels. Elements nightclub in Bournemouth, which has the capacity to accommodate 3,000 people, and the Dog and Duck in Weymouth are both classed as one unit, which is unacceptable. We have 30,000 visitors on a Friday or Saturday night, but those numbers are not taken into account in the manning levels for Dorset and Bournemouth, so I urge the Minister to reconsider them.
	A growing majority of people go out on a Friday or Saturday night with the sole purpose of getting drunk. There has been a change in attitudes, as we have heard, because those people do not have a sense of duty and have grown up with a different set of values. I blame the role models with whom they associate themselves or whom they look up to. What recently happened in "Big Brother" is a mirror image of British society. I shall leave aside the racist taunts. Shilpa Shetty is a Bollywood star and everything that Jo, Jade and Danielle are not. She is rich, famous, talented and intelligent—everything they want to be but cannot be. Their behaviour has been fuelled by alcohol, which is typical of so many youngsters today. They get drunk and behave aggressively, oblivious to the consequences. They are chasing a dream fuelled by a desire to alter their station in life without making any effort. Their behaviour is made worse because they have been trapped in the "Big Brother" house, but it is a true reflection of what is going on in British society.
	Too many youngsters care little about the community, have no sense of responsibility and do not try to understand people outside their own circle. Their role models are pop stars, film stars and football players. We all know those characters and how they behave. They are in our papers every day. They are not the role models that I grew up with, and are certainly not the role models that my parents had. Unfortunately, there is a growing generation that has limited aspirations. Binge drinking is seen as OK. The spin-off from that is the antisocial behaviour that we have discussed today. The drinking culture in Britain is so different from that on the continent. In a roundabout way, "Big Brother" has done the nation a favour by allowing us to focus on what is happening to our culture.
	Not enough is being done to counteract that. We should try to catch people early, keep them active and engaged, build their confidence and manage their expectations. In Bournemouth there are examples to show that the opposite is happening. We have been told to build 20,000 houses. No consideration has been given to how close together the houses will be or the type of community that that will create. No consideration has been given to amenities, which will undoubtedly have an impact on community spirit when people are living on top of each other.
	In other parts of the world, such as New York or Australia, basketball nets and other outdoor facilities are free and widely available. In Britain, swings and roundabouts are provided for children up to the age of four, then there is nothing for kids to do to expend their energy, other than to hang around on the streets. Those who try to take the initiative, such as Bournemouth sea cadets, get no money because of the cuts in defence spending. Bournemouth canoe club gets no money because budgets have been cut by the councils. It has been reiterated time and again in the Chamber that the emphasis must be on local structures, but that is not happening.
	The problem is serious. There is a whole generation that has a different set of values and does not share a sense of commitment to the community or duty to the country. The knock-on effect is poor education, reliance on the state and increased antisocial behaviour.
	I should like to introduce a form of community service. I am not suggesting bringing back the draft. My suggestion is that when young people reach the age of 18, they should spend 10 months doing something that is not for themselves. Yes, they could join the Army, the Navy or the Air Force, but they could also join the Forestry Commission, a voluntary unit or a community hospital. Doing something that was not for themselves, but which would be to the economic benefit of the country, would cut back the £3.4 billion that is being wasted each year dealing with antisocial behaviour. More importantly, it would build the individual's self-esteem, skill sets, confidence, sense of duty and pride in the nation.
	Under the Government since 1997 truancy is up, crime has risen, binge drinking is reaching a critical level, obesity is on the rise, family breakdown is on the increase, prisoner reoffending is up and, as has just been mentioned, teenage pregnancy rates have increased. That is a poor reflection of the Government's performance. Antisocial behaviour is the antithesis to society, and society is changing under the Government. I am worried for our younger generation. I am also worried that on current performance, the Government are not meeting the challenge to face those issues.

James Brokenshire: In his opening speech, the Minister said that he hoped that we would have a thoughtful and measured debate. That is precisely what we have had this afternoon, with some interesting contributions raising various issues associated with the problems of antisocial behaviour, which significantly affects so many neighbourhoods and communities across the country.
	Neighbourhood crime, neighbourhood nuisance and community safety have a major impact on the quality of life of countless people. There is little doubt that walls daubed with graffiti tags, smashed up bus shelters and rowdy groups on the streets intimidate many people and discourage them from venturing out into their own communities. The hon. Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh), like many other Members, talked about the local action, and she described how individuals in her community were taking the initiative. Those actions at community level are crucial in delivering the changes that we want.
	I welcome the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Browne) on his first outing on the Liberal Democrat Front Bench. He made some interesting remarks about the history of community policing, albeit that Members in other parts of the House may not have shared his take on certain aspects.
	The hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) emphasised the importance of partnership working with the police and other agencies, as well as the role played by the community. I agreed with a fair amount of what she said, although I might look at her in a slightly different light in future given her theme of "Big Sister" and wonder whether she personifies that in her constituency in looking out for the interests of its residents.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) made a thoughtful contribution in which he observed that solutions can come only from the communities and individuals involved. He challenged Members on both sides of the House to reflect on that, and we certainly will.
	The hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Wright) emphasised the need for restorative justice, highlighting the community court in Liverpool that has been set up as a pilot. As more pilots roll out in the months ahead, we will examine their effects in bringing justice closer to the community.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Goodwill) emphasised the impact of the growth in late-night entertainment and the problems of alcohol and binge drinking. I noted his comments about the local initiatives that have been introduced in his constituency to deal with alcohol-related crime and about the importance of the built environment in making communities feel safer.
	The hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) mentioned the problems in her constituency in relation to community policing. I will be interested to see how the Minister responds to her direct questions about that. The National Audit Office report indicated that about 80 per cent. of people in receipt of ASBOs already had a criminal record, which raises questions about whether they are given in appropriate circumstances. There is also the question of the overlap between antisocial behaviour and crime.
	The hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) talked about the balance between support and action, which is a key aspect of the debate. It is important not to equate all young people with yobbishness, and we must all get that message across. Last night, I attended a presentation evening at Chafford school, where I said that it was great to celebrate young people's successes. They are not all bad, but that can be the perception from looking at the newspapers. It is much more sophisticated than that and we need to appreciate that.
	It is important to take account of mental health challenges such as Asperger's, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and dyslexia, which can be triggers of or factors that lead to antisocial behaviour and crime. We must consider how to resolve those problems through dealing with people who experience such challenges.
	The hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) highlighted the problem of ASBO enforcement: if breaches occur, ASBOs are not always properly enforced and proper sanctions are not applied. That is a powerful and important message about the impact and effect of ASBOs.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Ellwood) mentioned the increase in antisocial behaviour in the past few years. He made an important point about the role of special constables. I want to put on record my congratulations to special constables on their work and service day in, day out, and my thanks to them for that. They are important and should be valued. My hon. Friend made important points about how their status could be further improved which I am sure will not be lost on hon. Members of all parties.
	My hon. Friend also mentioned volunteering and getting young people involved in the social aspect of their communities. I welcome the initiative of my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron): the young adult trust, which tries to promote a sense of social responsibility in communities, gets people involved and gives them new opportunities.
	There is no doubt that antisocial behaviour makes an impact on all our communities throughout the country, but it also places a huge burden on the state. According to the National Audit Office, the cost to Government agencies of responding to reports of antisocial behaviour is approximately £3.4 billion per year. The Prime Minister's strategy unit estimates that problem families—whose members commit crime—live on benefits, have poor health and cost the state up to £250,000 a year. My hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) drew attention to that.
	I welcomed the spirit in which the Minister opened the debate. He accepted that aspects of his policies were not an unqualified success. Many issues that were mentioned today brought that to the fore. Against the backdrop of neighbourhood disorder, the Government have introduced an array of legislation, made many announcements and set up initiatives, culminating most recently in the launch of the much hyped Respect action plan. That included a host of interventions which fall outside the criminal law, from warning letters, through acceptable behaviour contracts and fixed penalty notices, to antisocial behaviour orders.
	The Prime Minister has talked up ASBOs above all other interventions. In the Respect action plan, he stated that he was,
	"pleased that an ASBO is now a household expression—synonymous with tackling antisocial behaviour."
	The problem for the Prime Minister and the Government is that they simply do not know how effective ASBOs are at tackling antisocial behaviour.
	The recent National Audit Office report "Tackling Anti-social Behaviour" noted:
	"The absence of formal evaluation by the Home Office of the success of different interventions and of the impact of providing support services in conjunction with the interventions prevents local areas targeting interventions in the most efficient way to achieve the best outcome for the least cost."
	This week's report by the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies, "Ten years of criminal justice under Labour: An independent audit", goes a step further. It states:
	"There is little doubt that underlying some of the rhetoric are real problems affecting people in communities across the country. But Labour has become lost in the arbitrariness of its measures of anti-social behaviour. Furthermore, its flagship ASBO policy faced huge implementation problems at the start, and is looking increasingly discredited as a mainstream response."
	The current lack of detailed qualitative analysis of the apparent remedies devised by the Government leads to confusion locally, with the National Audit Office suggesting that antisocial behaviour co-ordinators and others were
	"more likely to use interventions which related to their background or local preference rather than there being a clear relationship to the behaviour exhibited."
	As for the public, according to Ipsos MORI, people believe that ASBOs are effective in showing the local community that something is being done about antisocial behaviour, with a positive rating of plus 18 per cent. The rating slumps to minus 7 per cent. when people are asked whether they think that ASBOs stop people engaging in antisocial behaviour. This is a case of presentation over delivery. The upshot of all this is that, having introduced a toolkit of sanctions, the Home Office does not know exactly what works, when it works or why it works.
	There has been some discussion about whether the ASBO has become a badge of honour among certain groups. It certainly seems as though the breach rate for ASBOs has become a badge of honour for the Home Office. The rate has become higher and higher, with the National Audit Office putting the figure at 55 per cent. and some studies suggesting that it is topping 60 per cent. We are now told by the Home Office that that is to be viewed as some kind of measure of success, on the basis that ASBOs are being enforced. That is absurd logic, even for the Home Office. It shows that ASBOs are ineffective in getting the offender to change their behaviour, and that they are being breached. Perhaps the Minister could tell us whether, if that analysis is to be followed through, he would welcome a further jump in the breach rate next year.
	It is not just the antisocial behaviour order that has run into problems. Other key parts of the Respect action plan have also been derailed. The Government's manifesto commitment to increase the numbers of police community support officers to 24,000 by 2008 to "revolutionise policing" in our communities has been slashed by 8,000, as we have heard from many hon. Members today. The national single non-emergency number intended to be available across England and Wales by next year is now to be subject to an evaluation review towards the end of this year, despite apparently being a key part of the Respect drive. In the recent national community safety plan update, the Home Office gave itself a green traffic light on this issue. In fact, it looks as though the traffic light is firmly stuck on red.
	More generally, one of the worrying aspects of the Government's approach is the conflation of antisocial behaviour and crime. The concept of antisocial behaviour is subjective and has been used to cover a wide range of issues including selfish or thoughtless behaviour, nuisance and crime. That has caused a damaging erosion of what is viewed as a crime. That sends out a wider message, and there are parallels with the Government's proposals to use fines rather than community punishments. The response of the judiciary to that proposal has direct relevance to the debate on the cross-over between antisocial behaviour and crime.
	In response to the consultation on community punishments, the Council of Her Majesty's Circuit Court Judges was quoted in the press as saying:
	"Less serious offending is usually the breeding ground for more serious offending...To create the impression such offending is not to be treated as significant is to encourage the belief that crime may not result in retribution, hastening and substantially increasing the risk of more serious offending taking place."
	There is a clear point of distinction between the desire for speedier, more efficient justice and the erosion of the concept of criminality. Summary justice does not mean soft justice.
	We believe that it is right to hold individuals to account, to hold them responsible for their actions and to punish them when they break the law, but if we do not tackle the underlying causes of crime and disorder we will never have safer communities and safer neighbourhoods. There is a shared responsibility between the Government, local government, other public agencies, social entrepreneurs and the communities themselves to tackle the fundamental matters of family breakdown, mental health issues, drug dependency, and a lack of educational achievement, opportunity and hope—all of which can act as contributory factors to antisocial and criminal behaviour for so many people.
	However many initiatives and action plans the Government may come up with, however many Respect squads they may impose, and however many super-nannies they may parachute in, there will be only a limited effect on the number of people benefiting and on the duration of the support. "Tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime" sounded good all those years ago, but after 10 years in office, it remains what it was then: just a soundbite.

Vernon Coaker: It is a pleasure and a privilege to wind up such an important debate. As various hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber have said, antisocial behaviour affects all our constituents and is of real concern to many. I join the hon. Member for Hornchurch (James Brokenshire)—who was here instead of in Committee this afternoon—in congratulating all Members who have contributed to the quality of the debate. People outside will be pleased by the generally constructive nature of the debate—although differences of view were expressed—which will make an important contribution to tackling a real concern.
	I intend to make some general comments, then to respond to individual Members' contributions, and finally to say something about the way forward.
	I want to emphasise an extremely important point made by the hon. Member for Hornchurch and a couple of others. Much of today's debate has focused on yobbish behaviour and on the minority of young people in our communities who cause a criminal, antisocial problem, which drives people in many parts of the country to despair. Nobody can condone, in any sense, such behaviour. As hon. Members have said, however, we are talking about a minority of young people. We are not talking about the majority of young people, who are growing up in difficult times and, in many cases, caring for others, raising money for charity and making all sorts of wonderful contributions to their communities. It behoves us to ensure that the message that goes out from this Chamber is that, yes, we want to clamp down on the irresponsible and criminal minority, but we recognise that the vast majority of young people in this country are a credit to their communities and their families. That is an important point on which to start.
	It is often thought that it is parliamentarians, the older generation or people who are somehow not in touch who want antisocial behaviour to be dealt with. However, when I go and speak to young people—I am sure that many hon. Members, and many of my hon. Friends, have the same experience—I find that it is young people themselves who are demanding that we do something about it. By and large, young people are much more likely to be the victims of crime or antisocial behaviour, to have their mobile phone taken, to be the victims of irresponsible drinking, to be mugged on the street, to have their bag stolen and to be intimidated.
	Let us be clear: this is not a debate about out-of-touch parliamentarians or older people lecturing younger people about the way that they should live, or about some mythical age, which, if only we could return to it, would make everything better. It is about a demand from every section of the community, young and old, that we do something about the problems that exist. Young people want that as much as anyone else. That is also an important message to get across.
	Partnership is key to tackling antisocial behaviour, in any area. A strong partnership must be based on a strong police service and police force. As neighbourhood policing and issues relating to police officers have been mentioned, it would be helpful to run through some statistics. On a like-for-like basis, Government grants and central spending to help the police service in England and Wales tackle antisocial behaviour will have increased from £6.2 billion in 1997-98 to £11 billion in 2007-08. That is a cash increase of nearly £4.8 billion, or 77 per cent. In real terms, there has been an increase of more than 39 per cent. between 1997-98 and 2007-08. We can debate the level of resources, but all Members should acknowledge that there has been a substantial increase.
	By the time recruitment has finished, there will be an additional 16,000 police community support officers—because, obviously, there were none before—and more than 14,000 additional police officers. There will be more specials, and a 35 per reduction in crime. There will be more than 20,000 additional civilian posts, which themselves make an important contribution to ensuring that we have police on our streets. However, we must ensure that we give our police the powers that they need.
	The Government have listened to what communities and voluntary organisations have told us. We have listened to what has been said about what we know to be problems in our communities. Having listened, we have introduced a number of measures that have made a significant difference and provided additional powers. We have introduced parenting orders to deal with problem families. Antisocial behaviour orders—about which I shall say more shortly—have made a significant contribution to the tackling of antisocial behaviour in many areas, although I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey) that it would be helpful if there were more individual support orders, which are intended to help those with antisocial behaviour problems. Powers have been introduced which have led to the closure of more than 500 crack houses across the country. The Government introduced those powers to deal with a very real problem that many of us have encountered in our communities. Mini-motos are illegal on the streets without proper licensing, and we need to remind people of that.
	The lesson of all those measures is that—as my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Wright) pointed out—when people work in partnership real change happens, and real differences can be made in the tackling of crime and antisocial behaviour.
	I agree with the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) and others that it is not just a question of giving the police and law enforcement authorities more powers. We must try to tackle some of the problems in our communities, along with their causes. Some may complain that the Government have not done enough, or that action in certain policy areas has not been as effective as it might have been. However, the Government have spent enormous sums on working with communities to try to challenge some of the causes of antisocial behaviour in each and every community, and in society as a whole.
	Huge amounts have been spent on neighbourhood renewal and trying to regenerate areas where social and industrial decay and poor housing have blighted so many communities. Money has been invested in work with our teachers to provide good schools in some of our most difficult areas, on tackling truancy by encouraging people to attend school, and on raising standards and expectations. There have also been huge increases in parental support. People felt at first that Sure Start was a "nanny state" idea that would interfere with families, but the children's centres that have resulted from it represent a major attempt to help some of the poorest and most dysfunctional families in society. We as a Government should be proud of that. Every Member with a children's centre in his constituency will visit it, and will tell people how good the centres are and what a difference they have made to those who use and work in them.
	Alongside all those measures are diversionary tactics—projects such as Positive Futures, intended to divert young people from crime—and the most difficult project of all, trying to restore respect. A question that confronts us all and does not, I think, divide us is "How do we pass a law saying that people must respect one another?" There is a debate to be had about how we can restore respect for each other in our communities to make society function more effectively. The Government's Respect taskforce is a good example of the way in which we have wrestled with what everyone recognises as a real issue in communities. That is not the draconian, fascist-type of authority that it is often caricatured as; it is about having respect for the police, for teachers and for parents. People tell us that they feel that respect for such legitimate authority is missing. The work that is being done by the Respect taskforce, local authorities, MPs and the Government is part of the agenda of trying to restore that. Although we want to introduce new laws and we are trying to do many other things, we will only succeed in tackling antisocial behaviour if we manage to restore respect in our communities.
	My opening remarks have not been as brief as I had hoped, and although I cannot do justice to the contributions of every Member who spoke, let me pick up on a few of the points that were made. The hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs made an important point on PCSO numbers. The reason why there is flexibility in the budgets is not to do with the Government; it is because the Association of Police Authorities and the Association of Chief Police Officers have asked for that flexibility. Let me quote from their press release:
	"We are pleased that the Government has listened to the case, made by the Association of Police Authorities and the Association of Chief Police Officers, for greater flexibilities and freedoms in determining the ways that policing is provided to local people."
	I know that the Conservative party is looking at its policy agenda. One of the things it is looking at is local decision making. One of the consequences of that is that sometimes decisions are made locally that are difficult nationally. However, if we are to have local decision making and flexibility, we must mean it. We have tried to respond to what we were asked to do in a way that protects policing but gives that flexibility in respect of local services. We gave flexibility to local services to determine how to spend the funds.
	I join my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) in congratulating Sue Thomson on the work that she has done on controlling the night-time economy in Wakefield and reducing crime by 25 per cent. I also welcome the conversion of the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Browne) to the need for police community support officers. However, we noted that the Liberal Democrats remain opposed to dispersal powers. In communities throughout the country, dispersal powers are an effective tool in tackling antisocial behaviour. Let me make a party-political point: I hope that the hon. Gentleman tells every Liberal Democrat constituency party in the country that the policy is to oppose dispersal orders, because many of my hon. Friends find that that message somehow does not get down to local Liberal Democrats. So let me say loudly and clearly, so that it is recorded in  Hansard, that we recognise that the Liberal Democrats are opposed to the use of dispersal powers.
	I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) is greatly concerned about the links between skunk in particular and mental health issues. I hope that she has seen our recently launched advertising campaign, "Brain store", which tries to deal with the problem.
	The hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) mentioned problems to do with social breakdown; the debate on that needs to continue. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool for his kind remarks. He talked about the need for partnership and the success that there has been in Hartlepool as a result of people working together. I commend him on the community leadership he has shown in trying to ensure that the powers that are available to local councils and local people are used. On the point he made about more power to residents associations, it is clear that if we are to do anything, local people must be involved, and they should determine how best to get involved.
	Let me say to the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Goodwill) that I look forward to eating chicken-in-a-basket in Scarborough. He mentioned alcohol. That is clearly a major problem and we need to deal with it, and the designated public places orders are very successful.
	I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac). If she wants to meet me to discuss some of issues in her constituency, I will do so. My hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) made some great remarks on youth facilities. They are very important. Prevention is the key, as the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) said. The hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Ellwood) mentioned the important role of special constables. I apologise if I have missed anybody, or any particular points, but if anyone wants to meet me in the Lobby to discuss them, I am perfectly happy to do that.
	We are tackling the problem of antisocial behaviour from every direction, providing the tools and powers to agencies in order to stop a range of antisocial behaviour, and focusing on early intervention. In the light of all those measures, we hope to make a very—
	 It being Six o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Fiona Mactaggart: The complaints of the hon. Lady's constituents are similar to those of my constituents about the appalling service on the same line. Does she find it shocking that European Union regulations provide for a minimum amount of space for a cow, sheep or pig, but none prevent the grotesque overcrowding that human beings face daily on that line?

Theresa May: I do share that concern and I know that the hon. Lady has been fighting on behalf of her constituents in Slough who suffer from the same problems as my constituents. It is appalling that if our constituents were chickens, cows or pigs, there would be rules about how many could be in a carriage at a time. Because they are people, there are no such rules. Sadly, the Office of Rail Regulation, which now has responsibility for health and safety on the railways, is doing nothing about the chronic overcrowding, which is not only miserable for those travelling in those circumstances, but downright dangerous, as many of my constituents have pointed out.
	Jonathan Freeland continues:
	"The consequence is that my wife will be going onto maternity leave earlier than would otherwise be the case—travel being the only reason."
	Richard Ashcroft has emailed me to say:
	"What I object to strongly is the WILFUL DESTRUCTION of previously existing services to Maidenhead commuters."
	Janice Trounson writes:
	"It is sad, when I look back over the 8 years that I have lived in Maidenhead, to see the service that was previously 'enjoyed' rapidly being eroded even further with each and every timetable change."
	What is sad is not only the problems caused by the timetable change, but the attitude of the rail company, which causes extra frustration for commuters. They email the company only to be told not to worry, it is just teething problems and it will all bed down in due course. Sometimes the train company does not seem to know what is happening. I had an email only yesterday from Jo Hulme who said that
	"whilst waiting at Twyford for the 07:42 Oxford bound service we were treated to the platform announcement 'this is a platform announcement. The computers are down and we can't tell where the trains are'."
	That is symptomatic of the attitude that many of my constituents report from FGW. Sam Steele emailed me yesterday to say that he had asked FGW:
	"Can you please take the time to truly listen to your passengers...This is not a PR exercise, it is a real problem for your passengers who have to live with these problems on a day to day basis."
	He goes on to say that people obviously have to be at work at certain times, and that
	"just because FGW decide to change their train timetable doesn't mean our bosses will suddenly think it's OK for us to roll into work 15-20 minutes late. We all have commitments, and FGW's commitment is to its passengers."
	The problem was summed up best by a gentleman whose name I shall not mention, as he is employed by FGW as a train driver. In his email, he states that
	"the impression I get is that they are only interested in their HST long distance services and they have no idea how to organise and run a commuter based service...I have been on the railway 28 years, and the attitude of First Group towards anything they don't agree with is that it's lump it or like it."
	That is what my constituents are experiencing with their train service. They have complained but are not getting the responses that they need from the company.
	That is not to say that FGW has not made some changes. On the contrary, it suddenly announced that changes would be made from Monday of this week. I have mentioned already last year's petition of 2,500 signatures, and the key change that it secured was the introduction of the 0726 from Twyford, which stopped at Maidenhead and then went straight to Paddington. The train was empty at Twyford, so people could get seats, which were still available at Maidenhead. However, as part of the most recent "improvements" made by FGW, passengers are now allowed to get on the train at Oxford, and the result is that my constituents in Maidenhead find it harder to join the service. That is therefore no improvement at all.
	I turn now to the problem of overcrowding. The hon. Member for Slough commented on it earlier, but FGW found a way around it. Last March, the  Evening Standard reported that the 1806 Paddington to Oxford service that called at my constituency was the sixth most overcrowded in the country. However, it no longer features in the list—FGW has abolished it and it does not run any more. That is one way to get rid of the overcrowding problem, but the consequence is that other services are more overcrowded than they were before.
	That is all the more bizarre, given that the franchise agreement between the Department of Transport and the rail companies requires each company to allocate rolling stock resources
	"in such as manner as to reconcile its available capacity to passenger demand...so that instances of trains operating with passengers in excess of capacity are kept to a minimum."
	However, that is not happening with the FGW franchise that serves the stations in my constituency.
	The train service for my constituents is appalling, and it has deteriorated significantly from what it was in the past. I have talked about FGW, but the Government cannot exonerate themselves of all blame, as FGW bid for the franchise against the timetable specification that the Government set out.
	In that specification, the Government in their wisdom included the provision that trains running on the single-track service between Twyford and Henley, via Wargrave and Shiplake, did not have to stop at all stations. Given that the Government take that sort of attitude to train services, it is perhaps little wonder that we have the current problems.
	Although the timetable specification set by the Government was not good enough, I do not believe that FGW fought hard enough to improve it in the interests of my constituents in Maidenhead and Twyford. Neither do I believe that FGW is able to run a commuter service that is capable of satisfying my constituents.
	I look forward to the Minister's response. I hope that he will give me some positive news, and say that the Government will take action against FGW in respect of its franchise on the part of the line about which I am concerned. I hope too that they will act to ensure that my constituents see immediate improvements, rather than years of a deteriorating service. They need a decent train service, with good numbers of fast and semi-fast trains that are not constantly delayed or cancelled. In addition, overcrowding needs to be reduced so that passengers can get to work in reasonable comfort. In that way, they will be able to deliver the economic value for the country that is their objective.

Theresa May: Overcrowding is crucial in individual passengers' experience of rail services. Does the Minister stand by the comments of Dr. Mike Mitchell to a Committee of the House? He said that people should expect to have to stand on trains for half an hour and that
	"there are alternatives...if one travels off-peak".
	People who are going to work cannot travel off-peak. Furthermore, after spending several thousand pounds on a season ticket, they do not expect to have to travel crammed against other people day in, day out.

Theresa May: I do not intend to have a long interaction with the Minister about the meaning of a timetable, but the second service level commitment does specify the number of trains that will stop at particular stations and run between particular stations within a particular time frame. Around that, First Great Western will decide on the precise times for the timetable. The real problem for my constituents—and, I suspect, for those of the hon. Member for Slough—is that the majority of services now go on the slow relief line rather than on the fast main line. The Government and First Great Western could solve many of the problems for my constituents if more of those services from Maidenhead and Twyford went back on to the fast main line. It is the specification for the overall service that has led First Great Western to put them on the slow relief line. Put them back on the main line and then we could be satisfied with a better service.

Theresa May: But you do.

Tom Harris: I am delighted to have an opportunity to place on the record that the service level commitments contained in franchises are minimum levels of specification. Train operating companies have every right, and are encouraged, to add to that minimum level of service. There is some discontent and a lot of misinformation being circulated in the south-west of the country and the Bristol area. That is not an area that affects her constituency, but it is still the First Great Western franchise. That misinformation has accused the Government of ordering First Great Western to remove carriages from trains. We have been accused of forbidding First Great Western to increase the length of trains. That is nonsense. I am happy to put on the record that the minimum service level commitment is a minimum level. Train operating companies should add value to those levels.
	I hope that I will be able to get to the end of my speech in the time left, although I suspect that I will not. First Great Western carried out a public consultation exercise in February and March last year in which it asked for passengers' comments on its draft timetable. Several thousand responses were received—I expect that one was from the right hon. Lady—and they included comments about train services from both Maidenhead and Twyford and the associated branch lines to Marlow and Henley-on-Thames. In response to those comments, First Great Western was able to make several changes to its initial draft timetable, including introducing faster through services to London Paddington station. During the course of 2006, First Great Western continued to review the timetable and made several further changes, including some that commenced on Monday 15 January—the beginning of this week.
	I know from correspondence that I have read that there has been considerable discontent in bothMaidenhead and Twyford about both the Department's specification and the timetable implemented by First Great Western. I look to First Great Western, as I do to all train operators, to listen to its passengers and stakeholders and to make changes to meet their needs. However, it is important to recognise that the high demand for train slots on this key corridor means that it might not be possible for all aspirations to be met fully.
	I do not think that timetable changes can be blamed as the sole reason for the increase in overcrowding on trains in the right hon. Lady's constituency. The fact is that demand for train travel has increased by 40 per cent. over the past 10 years. Even without timetable changes, it was inevitable that trains would become busier.
	We are delivering for passengers and taxpayers. They are benefiting from improved performance and there has been investment in new trains and stations. New franchises such as First Great Western will result in yet further significant sums being spent to improve services for passengers, and I am sure that that is something on which the right hon. Lady and I can agree.
	 The motion having been made after Six o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. Deputy Speaker  adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
	 Adjourned at twenty-nine minutes to Seven o'clock.